Premium
Dimensions of biodata items and their relationships to item validity
Author(s) -
Lefkowitz Joel,
Gebbia Melissa I.,
Balsam Tamar,
Dunn Linda
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
journal of occupational and organizational psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.257
H-Index - 114
eISSN - 2044-8325
pISSN - 0963-1798
DOI - 10.1348/096317999166716
Subject(s) - psychology , respondent , social psychology , sample (material) , personality , item analysis , psychometrics , developmental psychology , chemistry , chromatography , political science , law
Building on the work of Mael (1991), Gandy, Outerbridge, Sharf & Dye (1989) and Asher (1972), 10 attributes or dimensions of biodata items were defined operationally. The 160 items of a biodata form undergoing validation were then rated reliably on the 10 item attributes. Biodata responses and supervisory ratings were obtained for a sample of 528 clerical workers, and an empirical scoring key was developed using an option‐keying method. Degree of item validity was associated with items that were Indirect (opinions of others about the respondent) and‐to a lesser degree‐Verifiable and Job Relevant. Five of the seven indirect items concerned putative or projected assessments of personality attributes by the respondents' supervisors. Items representing Non‐controllable events at first also seemed related significantly to valid prediction; however, that was owing to the strong association between Controllability and Directness. The other six dimensions were not related to item validity, including the degree to which an item was Historical in nature, which has in the past virtually defined what is meant by a biodata item. The factor structure of dimensions for valid items was different from that of non‐valid items. Implications for the construction of biodata forms and the limitations of the study are discussed.