The relationship of specific mental ability measures compared to a general mental ability measure to quality and quantity performance on a clerical job sample

Abstract

Barrett (1993) presented evidence that mental ability measures designed specifically for the prediction of performance in tasks and jobs have validity at least equal to that of tests of general mental ability, while having advantages such as lower adverse impact. The current study demonstrates that the match in specificity of predictor and criterion can be attained through simple changes in the scoring of standard mental and clerical ability tests. A sample of 51 university students completed a battery of pre-employment tests and, a week or two later, worked on a clerical job sample. The results indicated that quality of performance (number of errors on the task) was best predicted using the number of errors made on the predictor tests while quantity of work was only predicted by the number correct. A test of general mental ability did not correlate with either criterion. These results contradicted the conclusions of Schmidt (1993) that specific ability tests have no incremental validity above a general ability test.