c



  
     

That people differ from each other is obvious. How and why they differ is less clear and is the
subject of the study of Individual differences (IDs). Although to study individual differences
seems to be to study variance, how are people different, it is also to study central tendency, how
well can a person be described in terms of an overall within-person average. Indeed, perhaps the
most important question of individual differences is whether people are more similar to
themselves over time and across situations than they are to others, and whether the variation
within a single person across time and situation is less than the variation between people. A
related question is that of similarity, for people differ in their similarities to each other. Questions
of whether particular groups (e.g., groupings by sex, culture, age, or ethnicity) are more similar
within than between groups are also questions of individual differences.

Personality psychology addresses the questions of shared human nature, dimensions

of individual differences and unique patterns of individuals. Research in IDs ranges
from analyses of genetic codes to the study of sexual, social, ethnic, and cultural
differences and includes research on cognitive abilities, interpersonal styles, and
emotional reactivity. Methods range from laboratory experiments to longitudinal field
studies and include data reduction techniques such as Factor Analysis and Principal
Components Analysis, as well as Structural Modeling and Multi-Level Modeling
procedures. Measurement issues of most importance are those of reliability and
stability of Individual Differences.

Research in Individual Differences addresses three broad questions: 1) developing an

adequate descriptive taxonomy of how people differ; 2) applying differences in one
situation to predict differences in other situations; and 3) testing theoretical
explanations of the structure and dynamics of individual differences.

O
 

 
 

Taxonomic work has focused on categorizing the infinite ways in which individuals differ in
terms of a limited number of latent or unobservable constructs. This is a multi-step, cyclical
process of intuition, observation, deduction, induction, and verification that has gradually
converged on a consensual descriptive organization of broad classes of variables as well as on
methods for analyzing them. Most of the measurement and taxonomic techniques used
throughout the field have been developed in response to the demand for selection for schooling,
training, and business applications.

OO

Consider the case of differences in vocabulary in a particular language (e.g., English). Although
it is logically possible to organize people in terms of the specific words they know in English, the
more than 2^(500,000) possible response patterns that could be found by quizzing people on
each of the more than 500,000 words in English introduces more complexity rather than less.
Classical Test Theory (CTT) ignores individual response patterns and estimates an individual's
total vocabulary size by measuring performance on small samples of words. Words are seen as
random replicates of each other and thus individual differences in total vocabulary size are
estimated from observed differences on these smaller samples. The Pearson Product Moment
Correlation Coefficient (r) compares the degree of covariance between these samples with the
variance within samples. As the number of words sampled increases, the correlation of the
individual differences within each sample and with those in the total domain increases
accordingly.

Estimates of ability based upon Item Response Theory (IRT) take into account
parameters of the words themselves (i.e., the difficulty and discriminability of each
word) and estimate a single ability parameter for each individual. Although CTT and
IRT estimates are highly correlated, CTT statistics are based on decomposing the
sources of variance within and between individuals while IRT statistics focus on the
precision of an individual estimate without requiring differences between individuals.
CTT estimates of reliability of ability measures are assessed across similar items
(internal consistency), across alternate forms, and across different forms of assessment
as well as over time (stability). Tests are reliable to the extent that differences within
individuals are small compared to those between individuals when generalizing across
items, forms, or occasions. CTT reliability thus requires between subject variability.
IRT estimates, on the other hand, are concerned with the precision of measurement for
a particular person in terms of a metric defined by item difficulty.

The test theory developed to account for sampling differences within domains can be
generalized to account for differences between domains. Just as different samples of
words will yield somewhat different estimates of vocabulary, different cognitive tasks
(e.g., vocabulary and arithmetic performance) will yield different estimates of
performance. Using multivariate procedures such as Principal Components Analysis
or Factor Analysis, it is possible to decompose the total variation into between domain
covariance, within domain covariance, and within domain variance. One of the most
replicable observations in the study of individual differences is that almost all tests
thought to assess cognitive ability have a general factor (g) that is shared with other
tests of ability. That is, although each test has specific variance associated with
content (e.g., linguistic, spatial), form of administration (e.g., auditory, visual), or
operations involved (e.g., perceptual speed, memory storage, memory retrieval,
abstract reasoning), there is general variance that is common to all tests of cognitive
ability.

ð  
 

Although to some the term personality refers to all aspects of a person's individuality, typical
usage divides the field into studies of ability and personality. Tests of ability are viewed as
maximal performance measures. Ability is construed as the best one can do on a particular
measure in a limited time (speed test) or with unlimited time (power test). Personality measures
are estimates of average performance and typically include reports of preferences and estimates
of what one normally does and how one perceives oneself and is perceived by others.

The same procedures used to clarify the structure of cognitive abilities have been
applied to the question of identifying the domains of personality. Many of the early
and current personality inventories use self-descriptive questions (e.g., do you like to
go to lively parties; are you sometimes nervous) that are rationally or theoretically
relevant to some domain of interest for a particular investigator. Although there is
substantial consistency across inventories developed this way, some of this agreement
could be due to conceptually overlapping item pools. Other researchers have
advocated a lexical approach to the taxonomic problem, following the basic
assumption that words in the natural language describe all important individual
differences. This shifts the taxonomic question from how are individuals similar and
different from each other to how are the words used to describe individuals (e.g.,
lively, talkative, nervous, anxious) similar and different from each other.

Dimensional analyses of tests developed based on lexical, rational, or theoretical

bases suggest that a limited number (between three and seven) of higher order trait
domains adequately organize the thousands of words that describe individual
differences and the logically infinite way that these words can be combined into self
or peer report items. The broadest domains are those of introversion-extraversion and
emotional stability-neuroticism, with the domains of agreeableness, conscientiousness
and intellectual openness or culture close behind. These domains can be seen as
asking the questions that one wants to know about a stranger or a potential mate: are
they energetic and dominant (extraverted), emotionally stable (low neurotic),
trustworthy (conscientious), loveable (agreeable), and interesting (intelligent and
open).

Measures of ability and personality reflect observations aggregated across time and
occasion and require inferences about stable latent traits thought to account for the
variety of observed behaviors. However there are other individual differences that are
readily apparent to outside observers and require little or no inference about latent
traits. The most obvious of such variables include sex, age, height, and weight.
Differences that require some knowledge and inference are differences in ethnicity
and social economic status. These obvious group differences are sometimes analyzed
in terms of the more subtle measures of personality and ability or of real life outcomes
(e.g, sex differences in neuroticism, mathematics ability, or income).

ð
 


Individual differences are important only to the extent that they make a difference.
Does knowing that people differ on a trait X help in predicting the likelihood of their
doing behavior Y? For many important outcome variables the answer is a resounding
yes. In their review of 85 years of selection in personnel psychology, Frank Schmidt
and John Hunter (Psychological Bulletin, 1998, 124, 262-274) show how differences
in cognitive ability predict differences in job performance with correlations averaging
about .50 for mid complexity jobs. These correlations are moderated by job
complexity and are much higher for professional-managerial positions than they are
for completely unskilled jobs. In terms of applications to personnel psychology, a
superior manager (one standard deviation above the mean ability for managers)
produces almost 50% more than an average manager. These relationships diminish as
a function of years of experience and degree of training. General mental ability (g)
also has substantial predictive powers in predicting non-job related outcomes, such as
likelihood of completing college, risk for divorce and even risk for criminality.

The non-cognitive measures of individual differences also predict important real life
criteria. Extraversion is highly correlated with total sales in dollars among
salespeople. Similarly, impulsivity can be used to predict traffic violations.
Conscientiousness, when added to g substantially increases the predictability of job
performance. Although the size of the correlation is much lower, conscientiousness
measured in adolescence predicts premature mortality over the next fifty years.

— 

 
 

The taxonomic and predictive studies of individual differences are descriptive organizations of
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that go together and how they relate to other outcomes. But this
categorization is descriptive rather than causal and is analogous to grouping rocks in terms of
density and hardness rather than atomic or molecular structure. Causal theories of individual
differences are being developed but are in a much earlier stage than are the descriptive
taxonomies.

Descriptive taxonomies are used to organize the results of studies that examine
genetic bases of individual differences. By applying structural modeling techniques to
the variances and covariances associated with various family constellations it is
possible to decompose phenotypic trait variance into separate sources of genetic and
environmental variance. The most common family configurations that are used are
comparisons of identical (monozygotic) with fraternal (dizygotic) twins. Additional
designs include twins reared together or apart, and biological versus adoptive parents,
children and siblings. Conclusions from behavioral genetics for most personality traits
tend to be similar: Across different designs, with different samples from different
countries, roughly 40-60% of the phenotypic variance seems to be under genetic
control with only a very small part of the remaining environmental variance
associated with shared family environmental effects. Additional results suggest that
genetic sources of individual differences remain important across the lifespan.
However, this should not be taken to mean that people do not change as they mature
but rather that the paths one takes through life are similar to those taken by genetically
similar individuals.

Genes do not code for thoughts, feelings or behavior but rather code for proteins that
regulate and modulate biological systems. Although promising work has been done
searching for the biological bases of individual differences it is possible to sketch out
these bases only in the broadest of terms. Specific neurotransmitters and brain
structures can be associated with a broad class of approach behaviors and positive
affects while other neurotransmitters and structures can be associated with a similarly
broad class of avoidance behaviors and negative affects. Reports relating specific
alleles to specific personality traits emphasize that the broad personality traits are
most likely under polygenic influence and are moderated by environmental
experience.

Subtle differences in neurotransmitter availability and re-uptake vary the sensitivity of

individuals to cues about their environment that predict future resource availability
and external rewards and punishments. It is the way these cues are detected, atttended
to, stored, and integrated with previous experiences that makes each individual
unique. Current work on the bases of individual differences is concerned with
understanding this delicate interplay of biological propensities with environmental
opportunities and constraints as they are ultimately represented in an individual's
information processing system. With time we can expect to increase our taxonomic
and predictive power by using these causal bio-social theories of individual
differences.

O
 


 








 

  







  

 
 
 

 
 











 
 

  O




 
  
 

 






 
 
 
 


 
 
O






 
 
 
 


 

 
 

 
 
 O



 





 




 





!

 
 
  
 


 
 
O
 
 


 




 





  






 

 
O






 





  
O

 



 
 
 



 


   


 
 
 


 

c  
    
 

h


   

  


 
     
 
 


  


 







  








  
  



 
 


 

 
 


  
 
    
  
 

  


 



   
 



 
 
    


 


 
  



 
 





  
 


 


  


 
  

 
 

 
 
 
   
 

! 


 
  



  


  
 


 

 
 

  
 "






   
 

 




# 



$



    

%&

 
 

 
 
 
 


 


 
'  !
(# ! 



%&


  



 

!  
 
'  !




 



 

 



 
)



  

  
# ! 

  

 


    "
 !  
 %&

 
  


 #
 
 #

# #  
 %& 

)


   
 



*
a å

'  !+


,- 
(# !



)
 
  








 

 

a )




   
 



 





 



)
 
  



 
 

 

 


  
 
 .


     

 
  
 


 








  
  '
 /  
 0 ")
1
 2


 
 
 


 


   %&


 





%  


 +%&-



 
 


   






   
%&

 

  
 


 ! 
   
  


 +

34



  

-   
 +

33


  

- 



 


  


 

 


 
 


 

 

 






  

 
h 











  


 



1   %&



 


  

 



!  



 

 
  "

  
  



 

  "
 


 

  




 

 

   ! 


   


 



 
 
 
 

  

 









'
 
  1 
 *5 



  




 

 
 6h

'  

 71 
 

*88 
 8

6
 6 6

6
  8 6
6
6

6 6 6
6

6
6
 6
6 
 9$$:å0h
211


c ! "#  

 A test in which questions are written according to specific predetermined criteria. A
student knows what your standards are for passing and only competes against him or herself
while completing the test.
 Ä


"




# Ä O$ 


  
 


 


 



  


%
  

j

 Ä


"




 
 



 

 
  



  

   

  
 
 
&
 
 Ä O

 
 



  
 



O

 


 







O




 








 school 








 
! 


— 


v '
education 
 Ä O 





 
  



 




   
 

  

 (


 
 %



 
  
 

'  




 
 
 
 






 
 ) " 
*
 Ä O
 

+

    




 




O
+



 



 


 
 
 %


O


  

   

  




 
  
  ) " 
*
   

 
 





  



  




h 

ã O

  



"








 " 





O
Ä O

 

 


 
  
 






  
 

O
Ä O


 +



 







 
 





 


 
 

 

O


 

," ,

 





O

 
%


 
%


- 
 




Ä O


 










' 


 "









 

,, 

 


 

 
 "





*
  


.) 








 

 

O


 
 
 


 
   


/
 

 


 
 





 




 
 
 

 


 


  





 

0 Ä


"






   
 
 

 "





-
 
 1 O
 



 


  
  
! 


 
  

 





O











  


 ' 

 )2



 

 

 


 )2


 

 



3


  

 








  


 



 



  


 O
 


 




1 O 


  
   



O

 
Ä O

 

 



 

 


 



O  
—

 
) O

 

 

# 
  
  

  



 

 $ 




 
 
 
 +




-
 
 
 


 



 



  





  
!


 
 


 

  
   

O

 
  





   





!

 
 







 

 
/


    


 

  
 


 





 

O
* 
&
- 
-


 

"



  
%  

  

  
    

  

4  
 




 

,* 
 -




5O
3

 /  
!
 
-
 

6

 /
-



 '
  
-

 * 
 
4
,
  



 5
  
7
 7ã8 /

 
  
 

 



 & 
 9
Schooling6  !

  
" 



c $ % #

   
  

¢   

Definition: Reliability is the consistency of your measurement, or the degree to which

an instrument measures the same way each time it is used under the same condition
with the same subjects. In short, it is the repeatability of your measurement. A
measure is considered reliable if a person's score on the same test given twice is
similar. It is important to remember that reliability is not measured, it is estimated.

There are two ways that reliability is usually estimated: test/retest and internal
consistency.

O¢
Test/retest is the more conservative method to estimate reliability. Simply put, the
idea behind test/retest is that you should get the same score on test 1 as you do on test
2. The three main components to this method are as follows:
 1.) implement your measurement instrument at two separate times for each
subject;
2). compute the correlation between the two separate measurements; and
3) assume there is no change in the underlying condition (or trait you are trying
to measure) between test 1 and test 2.

2 
Internal consistency estimates reliability by grouping questions in a questionnaire that
measure the same concept. For example, you could write two sets of three questions
that measure the same concept (say class participation) and after collecting the
responses, run a correlation between those two groups of three questions to determine
if your instrument is reliably measuring that concept.

One common way of computing correlation values among the questions on your
instruments is by using Cronbach's Alpha. In short, Cronbach's alpha splits all the
questions on your instrument every possible way and computes correlation values for
them all (we use a computer program for this part). In the end, your computer output
generates one number for Cronbach's alpha - and just like a correlation coefficient, the
closer it is to one, the higher the reliability estimate of your instrument. Cronbach's
alpha is a less conservative estimate of reliability than test/retest.

The primary difference between test/retest and internal consistency estimates of

reliability is that test/retest involves two administrations of the measurement
instrument, whereas the internal consistency method involves only one administration
of that instrument.

 


Definition:‰alidity is the strength of our conclusions, inferences or propositions.

More formally, Cook and Campbell (1979) define it as the "best available
approximation to the truth or falsity of a given inference, proposition or conclusion."
In short, were we right? Let's look at a simple example. Say we are studying the effect
of strict attendance policies on class participation. In our case, we saw that class
participation did increase after the policy was established. Each type of validity would
highlight a different aspect of the relationship between our treatment (strict attendance
policy) and our observed outcome (increased class participation).

O  

There are four types of validity commonly examined in social research.
 1. Conclusion validity asks is there a relationship between the program and the
observed outcome? Or, in our example, is there a connection between the
attendance policy and the increased participation we saw?

2. Internal ‰alidity asks if there is a relationship between the program and the
outcome we saw, is it a causal relationship? For example, did the attendance
policy cause class participation to increase?

3. Construct validity is the hardest to understand in my opinion. It asks if there

is there a relationship between how I operationalized my concepts in this study
to the actual causal relationship I'm trying to study/? Or in our example, did our
treatment (attendance policy) reflect the construct of attendance, and did our
measured outcome - increased class participation - reflect the construct of
participation? Overall, we are trying to generalize our conceptualized treatment
and outcomes to broader constructs of the same concepts.

4. External validity refers to our ability to generalize the results of our study to
other settings. In our example, could we generalize our results to other
classrooms?

O O2  


There are three main types of threats to internal validity - single group, multiple group
and social interaction threats.

— O  apply when you are studying a single group receiving a
program or treatment. Thus, all of these threats can be greatly reduced by adding a
control group that is comparable to your program group to your study.

A j

 occurs when an historical event affects your program group such
that it causes the outcome you observe (rather than your treatment being the cause). In
our earlier example, this would mean that the stricter attendance policy did not cause
an increase in class participation, but rather, the expulsion of several students due to
low participation from school impacted your program group such that they increased
their participation as a result.

A 

  
 to internal validity occurs when standard events over the course
of time cause your outcome. For example, if by chance, the students who participated
in your study on class participation all "grew up" naturally and realized that class
participation increased their learning (how likely is that?) - that could be the cause of
your increased participation, not the stricter attendance policy.
A 
 
 to internal validity is simply when the act of taking a pre-test affects
how that group does on the post-test. For example, if in your study of class
participation, you measured class participation prior to implementing your new
attendance policy, and students became forewarned that there was about to be an
emphasis on participation, they may increase it simply as a result of involvement in
the pretest measure - and thus, your outcome could be a result of a testing threat - not
your treatment.

An 
 
  
 to internal validity could occur if the effect of increased
participation could be due to the way in which that pretest was implemented.

A 
 
 to internal validity occurs when subjects drop out of your study,
and this leads to an inflated measure of your effect. For example, if as a result of a
stricter attendance policy, most students drop out of a class, leaving only those more
serious students in the class (those who would participate at a high level naturally) -
this could mean your effect is overestimated and suffering from a mortality threat.

The last single group threat to internal validity is a  

 

. This is the
most intimating of them all (just its name alone makes one panic). Don't panic.
Simply put, a regression threat means that there is a tendency for the sample (those
students you study for example) to score close to the average (or mean) of a larger
population from the pretest to the posttest. This is a common occurrence, and will
happen between almost any two variables that you take two measures of. Because it is
common, it is easily remedied through either the inclusion of a control group or
through a carefully designed research plan (this is discussed later). For a great
discussion of regression threats, go to Bill Trochim's Center for Social Research
Methods.

In sum, these single group threats must be addressed in your research for it to remain
credible. One primary way to accomplish this is to include a control group comparable
to your program group. This however, does not solve all our problems, as I'll now
highlight the multiple group threats to internal validity.

þ  O  to internal validity involve the comparability of the two
groups in your study, and whether or not any other factor other than your treatment
causes the outcome. They also (conveniently) mirror the single group threats to
internal validity.

A —    j
 threat occurs when an event occurring between the pre and post
test affects the two groups differently.
A —    

  threat occurs when there are different rates of growth
between the two groups between the pre and post test.

—    
  threat is the result of the different effect from taking tests between
the two groups.

A —    
 
  threat occurs when the test implementation affects the
groups differently between the pre and post test.

A —    
  Threat occurs when there are different rates of dropout between
the groups which leads to you detecting an effect that may not actually occur.

Finally, a —     

 threat occurs when the two groups regress towards the
mean at different rates.

Okay, so know that you have dragged yourself through these extensive lists of threats
to validity - you're wondering how to make sense of it all. How do we minimize these
threats without going insane in the process? The best advice I've been given is to use
two groups when possible, and if you do, make sure they are as comparable as is
humanly possible. Whether you conduct a randomized experiment or a non-random
study --> YOUR GROUPS MUST BE AS EQUI‰ALENT AS POSSIBLE! This is
the best way to strengthen the internal validity of your research.The last type of threat
to discuss involves the social pressures in the research context that can impact your
results. These are known as     to internal validity.

 
  
  
  occurs when the comparison group learns
about the program group and imitates them, which will lead to an equalization of
outcomes between the groups (you will not see an effect as easily).



 
 means that the comparison group develops a competitive
attitude towards the program group, and this also makes it harder to detect an effect
due to your treatment rather than the comparison groups reaction to the program
group.


 
 
  is a threat to internal validity that exaggerates the posttest
differences between the two groups. This is because the comparison group (upon
learning of the program group) gets discouraged and no longer tries to achieve on
their own.




 
  
  is the only threat that is a result of the
actions of the research staff - it occurs when the staff begins to compensate the
comparison group to be "fair" in their opinion, and this leads to an equalization
between the groups and makes it harder to detect an effect due to your program.

O  



I know, I know - you're thinking - no I just can't go on. Let's take a deep breath and I'll
remind you what construct validity is, and then we'll look at the threats to it one at a
time. OK? OK.

Constuct validity is the degree to which inferences we have made from our study can
be generalized to the concepts underlying our program in the first place. For example,
if we are measuring self-esteem as an outcome, can our definition (operationalization)
of that term in our study be generalized to the rest of the world's concept of self-
esteem?

Ok, let's address the threats to construct validity slowly - don't be intimidated by their
lengthy academic names - I'll provide an English translation.


 
   
 
 
  

simply means we did not
define our concepts very well before we measured them or implemented our
treatment. The solution? Define your concepts well before proceeding to the
measurement phase of your study.

  
  

simply means we only used one version of our independent
variable (our program or treatment) in our study, and hence, limit the breadth of our
study's results. The solution? Try to implement multiple versions of your program to
increase your study's utility.

  

simply put, means that you only used one measure or observation
of an important concept, which in the end, reduces the evidence that your measure is a
valid one. The solution? Implement multiple measures of key concepts and do pilot
studies to try to demonstrate that your measures are valid.

  
  
 

  occurs when the testing in combination with
the treatment produces an effect. Thus you have inadequately defined your
"treatment," as testing becomes part of it due to its influence on the outcome. The
solution? Label your treatment accurately.

  
     
 
means that it was a combination of our treatment
and other things that brought about the effect. For example, if you were studying the
ability of Tylenol to reduce headaches and in actuality it was a combination of
Tylenol and Advil or Tylenol and exercise that reduced headaches -- you would have
an interaction of different treatments threatening your construct validity.


  ! 
 
 "



simply put, means that there were
some unanticipated effects from your program, that may make it difficult to say your
program was effective.

   

occurs when you are unable to detect an effect from your
program because you may have mislabeled your constructs or because the level of
your treatment wasn't enough to cause an effect.

As with internal validity, there are a few social threats to construct validity also. These
include:

1. j

!

: when participants base their behavior on what they

think your study is about - so your outcome is really not due solely to the
program - but also to the participants' reaction to you and your study.
2.

" 
 : When participant's are fearful of your study to the
point that it influences the treatment effect you detect.
3.     

: when researcher reactions shape the
participant's responses - so you mislabel the treatment effect you see as due to
the program when it is more likely due to the researchers behavior.

See, that wasn't so bad. We broke things down and attacked them one at a time. You
may be wondering why I haven't given you along list of threats to conclusion and
external validity - the simple answer is it seems as if the more critical threats involve
internal and construct validity. And, the means by which we improve conclusion and
external validity will be highlighted in the section on Strengthening Your Analysis.

— 

The real difference between reliability and validity is mostly a matter of definition.
Reliability estimates the consistency of your measurement, or more simply the degree
to which an instrument measures the same way each time it is used in under the same
conditions with the same subjects. ‰alidity, on the other hand, involves the degree to
which your are measuring what you are supposed to, more simply, the accuracy of
your measurement. It is my belief that validity is more important than reliability
because if an instrument does not accurately measure what it is supposed to, there is
no reason to use it even if it measures consistently (reliably).



c &  
' ! 

Description
O





   





 










 
    

 
   










 
 




a ¢




 
 





 



 




a ¢











 





 

a þ










 
 


  

 

2ndividual exercises
2





 


 
  

  


O








V
° 
 



°
  
  


 



  
 


  


 
 
 


2










 

   




  




 



 V 

V


! 
° 

 


  V 

!

°  "#   


"
rne-to-one exercises
2 
$ $ 




°







  

 °





  






 O

 

 




° 




 
°
 
% $

 




2





°

 
  
 

% 



 



  

 

 
 
 

 






O
 
 


 



 

 



 

  
$











 



  
$


  

° 




 










&
oroup exercises
o 




 




 ° 

 

 



'

O
¢ 
 


(


 

 
   

 
 

 
 




 

  



 
 
 





 
 
 
 






 
  



O

 

 
 

 

°

°

 °
 
)
°


$
°



 



 



 
   
 




'





° 



  



 

 




  
 


O

 
 
   


 

 
 °  






 





 
 
 



 

 
¢

 






*

'°+,-. 
 
 

$ 





/0
$
$

10
—elf-assessment exercises



 

 



° 



  






 



O



 








  



 

2 
 










a 2


  

  







 



 




a  

 
   




 

 



a 2 

 

 




 






  

O 

  
$

 


 


 








 
 
 







Development
3

 





 
 


 
°   




 



 
 


 
 °  
%






%





2dentify criteria
2






  




3




  % 


4



 


 $$
 

 $$
 
 

 



 O
 




%
 

Develop exercises
þ







 

O


  


 



 

 










3






 



 






 
 










  



   

  

 

 



2

 



 
 


 






 


5  



 




°  


 
2




   
$
°
    
 








   






°  


 
°


O

 
 





 
 



  
° 





 

 









—elect assessors
*


 
 



 




%
o


 

 °
 


O


  
 



 5 
  
 
 
 



% °  


 




 








 
3 

  

  
)
 










 °  




°
 
)
  

 



°
 

 
 
Develop tools for assessors


  

 %



 


O 



 
 




 
 


2
„
V 
V  
 

 



„
V
V  


$




 
)



$



O 



  
  

°
 °
°




„


 

  °

 




 
 



 


ðrepare assessors and others




 



° 
$
°




O





  

 




 
 
O   




  
2

  

 
 

°



 %
° 
 




$


þ

 
 

 



 

 
 

)
 




O

  

 


 




Run the assessment center
2  





°

 
O
 






a 3


 






°

 ° 


a 2
 
 

°
 

 











a 


 
 







a  
 
  



a *
  

 
  
 




a 


 

 
   


a ( & 


&
a O  

 

 

a h










 

   


6





hollow-up




°  
 


  

  



 




 

 

 





 




Discussion


 
  

 
2+,17  18  






'

$+,/9°
   098°

 
+,,9
 


 :-8




 

 
V 
 
 






 
O
 

 
 


 


°

 




 

$

°

 








 
  





  



 
)
  

  
 
 







 


rrigins
O







O;O° 


  



  

 + '



0 (


 


7 2$ 




. O $  




- < %




: <
 


1 = !
/






,  
 






‰alidity
¢








°


    

+,::
 

 









O


 








 
 


 


Criticisms
O
  
 





 
%
 

 




  
%
>  
%
%
  


 



   

 
 




  



  


° 
 






 



=
 
!


O

 

  
 

 
 
 

 .$-


 

þ



 


 

 

 


 



 




 




?



 
)





c ( )*  +     

O  '
 
   

3:
2
 

 


  
&
 &

- 

#&&-$ 

 

9 






& O9

 3/- 

& 

6 ;
 <*
 1 

=

-

 ã



ã 

) 

 


 

O  

 

)



O
9 6 

  
 O  6  


  
 



>
 & %  
 




O  &

   &  

9  ?@ '

 , )+ - 

O  '
 
 6  

/
 


  



 



'

 


  






 


  O



 





 


 
5

a



 


 




a 

-


% 
 % 


#
 


 9A-"  %  
$

a 

'





   




a 

'


 

 






a 

/
 "
  
 




a 

'



 
 7%
 



,)   .  .**'.* * ' 

*  +*

* * ' /**'0

&&-

 
  

 
;

  
O


 


&&- 
O

 

   

 
 



 
O
 

  !

O  :
  
 *  


  
  
;12"
 
3
  23
   3
3 3+ - 3 +4 3   5
 

)* * ' 2
   '

 

 





  
 
 

+


   


 


 
O


 

 



 

 
  
  



 
 
 
 
 



 

7  
 




 


)
    6

a

2726B


 


 ;

  
 

 


 
  



 "
 


a 

** 6B


  


 








/
 

 a 

 +6B


 


 ;









c 8  

‰
idity is a measur e of the effectiveness of a given approach. A selection process is valid

if it helps you incr ease the chances of hiring the right person for the job. It is possible to
evaluate hiring decisions in ter ms of such valued outcomes as high picking speed, low
absenteeism, or a good safety r ecor d. A selection process is not valid on its own, but
rather, relative to a specific purpose. For example, a test that effectively pr edicts the work
quality of strawberry pickers may be useless in the selection of a capable cr ew for eman.

A cr itical component of validity is re
i i
ity. ‰alidity embodies not only what positive
outcomes a selection approach may predict, but also how consistent
y(i.e., reliably) it does
so. In this chapter we will (1) r eview ways of improving the consistency or reliability of
the selection process; (2) discuss two methods for measuring validity; and (3) pr esent two
cases that illustrate these methods. First, however, let¶s consider a legal issue that is
closely connected to validity: employment discrimination.

c 9  +  



c : 5 

In psychology, a projective test is a type of personality test in which the individual offers
responses to ambiguous scenes, words or images. This type of test emerged from the
psychoanalytic school of thought, which suggested that people have unconscious thoughts or
urges. These projective tests were intended to uncover such unconscious desires that are hidden
from conscious awareness.

jðO 
 In many projective tests, the participant is shown an ambiguous image and then asked to give the
first response that comes to mind. The key to projective tests is the ambiguity of the stimuli.
According to the theory behind such tests, clearly defined questions result in answers that are
carefully crafted by the conscious mind. By providing the participant with a question or stimulus
that is not clear, the underlying and unconscious motivations or attitudes are revealed.

O ðO

There are a number of different types of projective tests. The following are just a few examples
of some of the best-known projective tests.

a O¢ 2 O

The Rorschach Inkblot was one of the first projective tests, and continues to be one of the
best-known. Developed by Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach in 1921, the test consists of
10 different cards that depict an ambiguous inkblot. The participant is shown one card at a
time and asked to describe what he or she sees in the image. The responses are recorded
verbatim by the tester. Gestures, tone of voice, and other reactions are also noted. The results
of the test can vary depending on which scoring system the examiner uses, of which many
different systems exist.

a OO O!OO"
In the Thematic Apperception Test, an individual is asked to look at a series of ambiguous
scenes. The participant is then asked to tell a story describing the scene, including what is
happening, how the characters are feeling and how the story will end. The examiner then
scores the test based on the needs, motivations and anxieties of the main character as well as
how the story eventually turns out.

— 
  ðO

Projective tests are most frequently used in therapeutic settings. In many cases, therapists use
these tests to learn qualitative information about a client. Some therapists may use projective
tests as a sort of icebreaker to encourage the client to discuss issues or examine thoughts and
emotions.

While projective tests have some benefits, they also have a number of weaknesses and
limitations. For example, the respondent's answers can be heavily influenced by the examiner's
attitudes or the test setting. Scoring projective tests is also highly subjective, so interpretations of
answers can vary dramatically from one examiner to the next.

Additionally, projective tests lack both validity and reliability. ‰alidity refers to whether or not a
test is measuring what it purports to measure, while reliability refers to the consistency of the test
results.


c 
,  

The   of a chart is the ratio of a given distance on the chart to the actual distance which it
represents on the earth. It may be expressed in various ways. The most common are:

1. A simple ratio or fraction, known as the    . For example, 1:80,000
or 1/80,000 means that one unit (such as a meter) on the chart represents 80,000 of the
same unit on the surface of the earth. This scale is sometimes called
the   or   scale.
2. A   that a given distance on the earth equals a given measure on the chart, or
vice versa. For example, ³30 miles to the inch´ means that 1 inch on the chart represents
30 miles of the earth¶s surface. Similarly, ³2 inches to a mile´ indicates that 2 inches on
the chart represent 1 mile on the earth. This is sometimes called the   .
3. A line or bar called a    may be drawn at a convenient place on the chart and
subdivided into nautical miles, meters, etc.

All charts vary somewhat in scale from point to point, and in some projections the scale is not
the same in all directions about a single point. A single subdivided line or bar for use over an
entire chart is shown only when the chart is of such scale and projection that the scale varies a
negligible amount over the chart, usually one of about 1:75,000 or larger. Since 1 minute of
latitude is very nearly equal to 1 nautical mile, the latitude scale serves as an approximate
graphic scale.

On most nautical charts the east and west borders are subdivided to facilitate distance
measurements. On a Mercator chart the scale varies with the latitude. This is noticeable on a
chart covering a relatively large distance in a north-south direction. On such a chart the border
scale near the latitude in question should be used for measuring distances.

Of the various methods of indicating scale, the graphical method is normally available in some
form on the chart. In addition, the scale is customarily stated on charts on which the scale does
not change appreciably over the chart. The ways of expressing the scale of a chart are readily
interchangeable. For instance, in a nautical mile there are about 72,913.39 inches. If the natural
scale of a chart is 1:80,000, one inch of the chart represents 80,000 inches of the earth, or a little
more than a mile. To find the exact amount, divide the scale by the number of inches in a mile,
or 80,000/72,913.39 = 1.097. Thus, a scale of 1:80,000 is the same as a scale of 1.097 (or
approximately 1.1) miles to an inch.
Stated another way, there are: 72,913.39/80,000 = 0.911 (approximately 0.9) inch to a mile.
Similarly, if the scale is 60 nautical miles to an inch, the representative fraction is 1:(60 x
72,913.39) = 1:4,374,803.

A chart covering a relatively large area is called a  #   and one covering a
relatively small area is called a #  . Since the terms are relative, there is no sharp
division between the two. Thus, a chart of scale 1:100,000 is large scale when compared with a
chart of 1:1,000,000 but small scale when compared with one of 1:25,000.

As scale decreases, the amount of detail which can be shown decreases also. Cartographers
selectively decrease the detail in a process called  $  when producing small scale
charts using large scale charts as sources. The amount of detail shown depends on several
factors, among them the coverage of the area at larger scales and the intended use of the chart.




c

  

O
 '



-%



 

 
%





  %



  

  >

 








 

 

 



 








 





  
4
 
 
 



 






 
 
  
 
 

   


 /


C'  
 CB



C6



/
CD

 C-

CE
O "O
C6


C"

)  + 

Ä 







  
 




+ 

 

+



Ä
  
 



+ 


 
 
#O

 




 

 



" 

/





 
$/


  


  

 



/







 
 
 











 
 
 
+ 
 





"





 



 




 
   







 
/



 

 






 
  
 



O
 
  









 

 

/

 













5

a 9
 
  
 
 + 

 

a E



   
&
 

 
 



 



+ 

 
-
+



 
/ 



 
 


 





F
a D
    




+


E

  
  








,'






,
a ' 






 



  

 
 
 
  





 
O  







 



 


 

 

 
+


)   

4



 


 









  
 



-



 





  
 







!
%"


 
 








 


 

A







  
 








 

 










 
 
 







  


 *
 

  

  
 
 





 

%

 
 


  
 











 






  








  

 



B
 
  
 




%


 


 

  
 


 



 



 


%



O
 
 
 

  






 


5

a Ä

 

    +

 


 
 
a E







  

 






  


 


 


 

a E







  
  
 


a 

  








);

'

 









  
 
  

  


/


 





  

 







G





 

  
 

 



 +


 


 


B












+

 
 

  

 >

 



 



"

 


 


  O






 

 
 

 


    

 



 













*

 


5

a 

 





 




a B

+
 

 




' 






  

  
 


 



   
 




%




)7  +

O





 


















'

 


   



,

 
 ,
  
   
O







   
 
"

+



 




O






   





   




O
 
 



  

   



 
 
 
 







 "



   5

a Ä






 

 
 
   

 
+ 


 





B






 
"%

 
 



  





a

 






*





  




 
 




 



  






' 















 %
a -
" 
+

-  

   


  








  
  
 


 

 


 


 
  
 
  




) 

-
 


E

 !

  

 


 



*












  


 
  



 
 
 
  




  
 
 



>
 





   










>
  



 
O






 

 





%
>
 
 

  


 
 "











 
 

 ' 

 
 

-








 




  
 










D




  
"

 

5

a


 

  
'

 (


 



 
 


a &
 
 

!


 


 
  
'  
 







 
 

 




a *











    
a E






 
 

' 







 
 








 





)1 
6  






















 
 

  
'








  
!

 



  


 


  
  


B










 
% 





 
 



 

 

+


"

   




 



" 







  

>

 
 

 

 


>


+




  
! 
O 

!







   5

a -

 

 
 

 
 + 


  

+

 
%
a




- 
+ 


 
 





 


 
  






a



 


 
  
 











 
 
 


 + 



>  
  
  







 
  
 

 

%
+


a &
 









 
 
 
 



 
 






  
:





 





 



)' 




  
 


 

 


 




 









  
   
 










  

- 

 


 





 
 






 

   


 

O

 





  

 





  
%


' 

 

 
 
 
 



 





+ 

 

+

 


 



 




O 

!
 




5

a Ä

 



 

 
 




Ä
 

  

 




  
 






  





 






!
 

a O


 
 
 
 

 
 



 
 


O 



 
a D 


 







 




) 

'




 

 
 
 
 







 
 


 




 
O






 
 

 


 
 

" 


 
 




 









   
 O





  

 
 
 
 
5
 
 
  







+
 O






  
 


 

 
 

 







+ 

 

  

 
 


O




 




 

 
 

 


 
 






 5
 a 4






 







 

 



 

 
'  

  



    

 
 






a O


 







 




a -


 

 
 

 

 
 

a :

 







  

 

 


))+") 

*




 6E

 

 
 
  


56E

 
  
/ 
B

Ä 

 
 



   









 
 
O

  





 
  

  

 





 
1

  


  
  

  

 
 
 


'
 












 
'
 




   


 
""







/

 
  

!





  5

a O

 
  

 


 E

 


  




 






 


 
 
' 

 


 




 

 
 



 
 

  
 




 


6 


 
 
 
 




 


 +


a 3



  
  
 
   A 
 





  


 


 

  
 
+







+






 
 

 

 










 
a D
 


 

 "






    

 

""




D


 


 

  

    

 



a &
 
 
 




 

 
 
 
""





/  
  % 


)7 

 





 


 

  



  


 
' 
 






 


  


 

  
 
 
 
%
 
%

6
 
 
 





"






 

 

 

 


 




6









 
 


& 
 
%
+




  
 

   



 



-

 
  
   
 

Ä 

 


  
    
  

 


 

/
 








 

 
 

5

a O 

 








  


B



4



 

    




' 
  
  
 
 


' 


  

!










 B






' 



 







 

a ' 




  

' 
 







 
 

 


  



 a O
 



 


 













 '






 
' 
     -

  


5,'
  ,,/ 
 



  
,
a Ä 
  

 




-
 
+

  


a 
 


 


  


*

  
 
  

a & 



 




 
 

a O 




 



)<" 

Ä 


 
 
  
 



  



  
 

/



% 
  

  !



  

/



 
 








  "
  
 
4















 


  
 

 




 






O






  

 


 
 
 
  






 
 

 



  




 
 

>  


 
 



 

  


 
 
 

 
/






 

 
 





>
 

 


 
 
  
-
 


 

  
 
 




  



/

   





5

a D


-
 
  

 







a &
  



  
 


   
 

a    
 
    


   
a D

 
  
5
 
  

 

 +  




c
   6

0=
 

D 


 

 

°


 

 







 %


)
  
% 


  

2
 







°


 


 

 
 % 

O
    
  % 


  






° 
%  
°

% 

 

 


  
O

 
 
 
 
 

 

 
% 2





   
%  










 
 
% 





 
$









 
% 






O
 
 




 
#

 
+,-+O





% 
 







  

% 
 $  ° 
 
 



—ome ðrinciples of Job Evaluation

a 
 







% 

O

% 


 






% 



a % 
 









% 




a D 
 


 
  

 

% 
a D 


 


 % ° 

2
 


  





a O
% 










 

 





a D 



 %


 




# 








 %



%

 


a 2
 

 
%

 %  





  
% 
 


a O


 









 
 


a D 


 

 
 



 
 

 


% 



Job Evaluation - The huture

 

 
 

 









 

 





 % 


2




% 


 

 









 
 
 
 °


%  




 
 

°

 


O
 

°
 
 


 



 




*




 





 


  

 



%  


 



   






% 





 
 
 


 
 



 






3


 








 
 

 
 


"2
 

 % 







°



 ° 

 




 


"*




  




 

   



 


Job Evaluation - More

D 





 
  
 

%
°
 

 





 D * 



O



 
D 
@D 
$

 
 









  
 


   @þ

¢
$'*2



70-.0

'*2



$70-0,?A
  




   
% 
 



 



B

2



  

 


D 






%  °
 

 


  





 
 
% ° 
  







 O




 

 

 


 
 %  
O
% 
 
  

  
  


Explanation:
D 

 


 




% 

 
 
þ    

 
% 


°
 

 


° 

 





°











 
 % 

2





 
  

 


 

!










 
 


2
 

 


  
 
 
°







2llustration:

O
O

* 3








  
% 



 

D
 
o

þ

 2

 
% 




 
 


  

 

 



 


 

 


° 

°
 

 


   





 
 

 
   
O

 




 


  

 

0'    

-
  

  


 


 


 





  

-

 


 



 



  
 




H

 



 
 

%
&

  

 

 
 
  %


 

 


 


 
 

 

 



+


-

 
%
O



'1!
#





$O
 
5( 
D

 v8G* IÄ

2
O
?




 

 

 


 


 



 



  

O

? ?




 
 

 

 


 

  


 O




 



  
 



 

 


 


 
%
J? 


K6


 


 










 
 

 







0*   +

07   +