The Content Validity of Cognitively Oriented Tests: Commentary on  S chmidt ([Schmidt, F. L., 2012]) | Zendy

Ployhart Robert E. | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Premium

The Content Validity of Cognitively Oriented Tests: Commentary on S chmidt ([Schmidt, F. L., 2012])

Author(s) -

Ployhart Robert E.

Publication year - 2012

Publication title -

international journal of selection and assessment

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 0.812

H-Index - 61

eISSN - 1468-2389

pISSN - 0965-075X

DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00575.x

Subject(s) - content validity , psychology , content (measure theory) , argument (complex analysis) , incremental validity , cognition , meaning (existential) , test validity , external validity , social psychology , psychometrics , clinical psychology , psychotherapist , psychiatry , mathematics , medicine , mathematical analysis

Schmidt ( International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 20, 1–13 (2012)) argues that it is possible for scores based on measures of general cognitive ability ( GCA ) to have content validity evidence. This commentary examines this argument further. I first decompose the various lines of validity evidence that may exist for GCA scores. Next, I consider whether GCA scores can have content validity evidence and whether they cannot. I conclude with several observations about the meaning of content validity within GCA research and practice. The bottom line is that although I agree with Schmidt that GCA scores can have content validity evidence, I am not sure such evidence tells us much about the overall validity of GCA .

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research