Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T12:25:04.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Construct Behind Content Validity: New Approaches to a Better Understanding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Maik Spengler ,
Petra Gelléri  and
Heinz Schuler
Maik Spengler*
Affiliation:
S & F Personalpsychologie Managementberatung GmbH
Petra Gelléri
Affiliation:
Hohenheim University
Heinz Schuler
Affiliation:
Hohenheim University
*
E-mail: spengler@personalpsychologie.de, Address: S & F Personalpsychologie Managementberatung GmbH, Hackländerstraße 17, D-70184 Stuttgart, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 504 - 508
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Hohenheim University, Chair for Psychology (540F)

References

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What we do know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30.Google Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193–217.Google Scholar
Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542–551.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.Google Scholar
Goerlich, Y., & Schuler, H. (2007). Arbeitsprobe zur berufsbezogenen lntelligenz. Technische und handwerkliche tätigkeiten [A work sample for occupational intelligence. Technical and skilled manual work]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1–19.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 238–257.Google Scholar
Klingner, Y., & Schuler, H. (2004). Improving participants' evaluations while maintaining validity by a work sample-intelligence test hybrid. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 120–134.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2009). Content validation is useful for many things, but validity isn't one of them. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 453–464.Google Scholar
Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., & McFarland, L. A. (2005). A meta-analysis of work sample test validity: Updating and integrating some classic literature. Personnel Psychology, 58, 1009–1037.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relations between measures of typical and maximum job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 482–486.Google Scholar
Satterwhite, R. C., Fleenor, J. W., Braddy, P. W., Feldman, J., & Hoopes, L. (2009). A case for homogeneity of personality at the occupational level. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 154–164.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.Google Scholar
Schuler, H., Mussel, P., & Schmidtborn, A. B. (2008). Crossing GMA and work samples: Hybrid tests as multimodal conceptualizations. Poster presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Schuler, H., & Schmitt, N. (1987). Multimodale messung in der personalpsychologie [Multimodal measurement in personnel psychology]. Diagnostica, 33, 259–271.Google Scholar
Wernimont, P., & Campbell, J. P. (1968). Signs, samples, and criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 372–376.Google Scholar
Wittmann, W. W. (1990). Brunswik-symmetrie und die konzeption der fünf-datenboxen. Ein rahmenkonzept für umfassende evaluationsforschung [Brunswik-symmetry and the conception of the five data-boxes. A framework for comprehensive evaluation research]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 4, 241–251.Google Scholar