Premium
VALIDITY GENERALIZATION: A REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF THE CORRELATION MODEL
Author(s) -
BURKE MICHAEL J.
Publication year - 1984
Publication title -
personnel psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.076
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1744-6570
pISSN - 0031-5826
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1984.tb02249.x
Subject(s) - generalization , psychology , criterion validity , variance (accounting) , statistics , correlation , external validity , common method variance , validity , test validity , concurrent validity , econometrics , mathematics , social psychology , construct validity , psychometrics , mathematical analysis , geometry , internal consistency , accounting , business
This paper presents a review and critique of the validity generalization research based on the correlation model. Emphasis was placed on integrating the applied validity generalization studies as well as the computer simulation studies which have tested the accuracy of the various validity generalization procedures in estimating the mean and variance of true validity coefficients. In general, this review indicated that the validity generalization procedures are fairly accurate in estimating the mean and variance of true validities, that the preponderance (e.g., 90%) of corrected validity coefficients for a single predictor‐criterion relationship, based on a series of cumulative studies, when placed in distributional form are positive, and that a substantial proportion of observed validity coefficient variation can be attributed to statistical artifacts with sampling error accounting for the majority of the artifactual variance. Moreover, potential problems with validity generalization/meta analysis based on criterion‐related validity coefficients were discussed. It was concluded that validity general‐ization/meta‐analysis is an important development in summarizing cumulative research, however, caution should be exercised in utilizing and interpreting the findings of such analyses. Directions for future research aimed at establishing trait‐performance relationships were discussed.