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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.