psy ability tests

©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

Ability Tests

Part 5 Predictors of Job Performance

CHAPTER

11

History of Ability Tests in Selection• Par Lahy

Developed tests for use in the selection of street car operators for the Paris Transportation Society

• Army Alpha A World War I mental ability/intelligence test

developed by the Psychology Committee of the National Research Council

• EEO laws and Supreme Court Decisions Initially decreased the use of some ability tests;

use of tests in selection has increased recently.

11–2© 2008 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.

Definition of Ability Tests• Ability Tests

Are standardized measures of some form of knowledge (e.g., physical, mental, mechanical, and clerical abilities) that results from formal learning experiences

• Traditional Forms of Ability Tests Aptitude tests

Measure knowledge acquired without formal training Achievement tests

Measure current levels of previously acquired knowledge Note: All tests measure what a person has learned up to the

time he or she takes the test. The distinction between Aptitude and Achievement

tests is irrelevant


Mental Ability Tests• Development of Mental Ability Tests

Binet and Simon Developed an intelligence test to measure the mental age

(academic achievement) of French school children Published as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale in the U.S.

Otis Self-Administering Test of Mental Ability The first group-administered mental ability test to have

widespread use in industry


What Is Measured by Ability Tests• Content and Academic Achievement

Mental ability tests have been validated by correlating test scores with educational achievement as criteria.

• Measured Abilities Mental ability tests measure several distinct abilities

but all tests do not measure the same abilities• Scoring of Tests

General tests provide an overall mental ability score Other tests either provide separate scores on each

abilitiy, then sum scores to report a total score or they measure separate abilities and do not combine the scores into a general ability measure.



Memory Span Figural Classification

Numerical Fluency Spatial Orientation

Verbal Comprehension Visualization

Conceptual Classification Intuitive Reasoning

Semantic Relations Ordering

General Reasoning Figural Identification

Conceptual Foresight Logical Evaluation

TABLE 11.1 Abilities Measured by Various Mental Ability Tests

The Wonderlic Personnel Test• Wonderlic Personnel Test

Developed in 1938, in wide use thereafter Is a 50 multiple-choice item test taken in 12 minutes Content—vocabulary, “commonsense” reasoning,

formal syllogisms, arithmetic reasoning and computation, analogies, perceptual skill, spatial relations, number series, scrambled sentences, and knowledge of proverbs.

Primarily measures verbal comprehension, with deduction and numerical fluency being the next two factors in order of importance.



NOTE: An (*) indicates the correct response.

TABLE 11.2 Example Items Similar to Items on the Wonderlic Personnel Test

The Validity of Mental Ability Tests• Project A

A multiple-year effort to develop a selection system appropriate for all entry-level positions in the U.S. Army

Involved the development of 65 predictor tests that could be used as selection instruments

Produced results indicating that general mental ability tests are valid selection instruments across a large variety of military jobs



SOURCE: Jeffrey J. McHenry, Laetta M. Hough, Jody L. Toquam, Mary A. Hanson, and Steven Ashworth, “Project A Validity Results: The Relationship between Predictor and Criterion Domains,” Personnel Psychology 43 (1990): 335–354.

TABLE 11.3 Project A Validity Coefficients

Validity Generalization Studies• Variations in Validity

Validity coefficients for the same combination of mental ability tests and job performance measures differ greatly for studies in different organizations.

These differences were thought to be caused by undetermined organizational factors that affected the correlation between selection instruments and criteria.

Selection specialists concluded that a validation study is necessary for each selection program developed.

Meta-analysis of differences indicates otherwise.



aFrank Schmidt, Ilene Gast-Rosenbery, and John Hunter, “Validity Generalization for Computer Programmers,” Journal of Applied Psychology 65 (1980): 643–661.bFrank Schmidt, John Hunter, Kenneth Pearlman, and Guy Shane, “Further Tests of the Schmidt-Hunter Bayesian Validity Generalization Procedure,” Personnel Psychology 32 (1979): 257–281.cKenneth Pearlman, Frank Schmidt, and John Hunter, “Validity Generalization Results for Tests Used to Predict Job Proficiency and Training Success in Clerical Occupations,” Journal of Applied Psychology 65 (1980): 373–406.

NOTE: Data for missing cells are not reported.

TABLE 11.4 Selected Validity Generalization Results for Various Jobs

11–13

TABLE 11.5 Selected Validity Generalization Results for Mental Ability Tests Across Jobs

© 2008 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.

SOURCE: John Hunter, “Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Aptitudes, Job Knowledge, and Job Performance,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 29 (1986): 340–362.

NOTE: Data for empty cells are not reported.


SOURCE: Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings,” Psychological Bulletin 124 (1998): 262–274.

TABLE 11.6 Validity of Mental Ability and Other Selection Tests


SOURCE: Richard Reilly and Michael Warech, “The Validity and Fairness of Alternatives to Cognitive Tests,” in Policy Issues in Employment Testing, ed. Linda C. Wing and Bernard R. Gifford (Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1993).

TABLE 11.7 Comparison of Eight Selection Methods with Cognitive Ability Tests

Validity Generalization Studies (cont’d)

• Implications for Selection It is no longer necessary to conduct validity studies

within each organization. There are no organizational effects on validity; therefore

the same predictor (selection instrument) can be used across all organizations.

It is necessary only to demonstrate through job analysis that the job is similar to the job in the validity generalization study.

Task differences among jobs have little effect on the validity coefficients of mental ability tests.

Differing information-processing and problem-solving demands of the job, not task differences themselves.


Validity Generalization Studies (cont’d)

• Implications for Selection (cont’d) A general mental ability test score is as good a

predictor of job performance as is a composite score from a test of specific abilities using multiple scales.

Situational specificity required by the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures are not appropriate at this point in time.


Mental Ability Tests and Discrimination• Differential validity

The hypothesis that employment tests are less valid for minority group members than nonminorities.

The validities for the same selection test in the two groups are statistically significant but unequal due to cultural bias in the content of ability tests.

The consistent research conclusion is that differential validity does not exist.



SOURCE: John Hunter, Frank Schmidt, and Ronda Hunter, “Differential Validity of Employment Tests by Race: A Comprehensive Review and Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 85 (1979): 721–735. Copyright 1979 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission.

FIGURE 11.1 Graph of 781 Pairs of Validity Coefficients

Mental Ability Tests and Adverse Impact• Research Findings

Meta-analysis of differences among demographic groups in scores on cognitive ability tests has shown consistent and significant differences in mean test scores among racial/ethnic groups.

• d-Statistic Is the difference in means (e.g., white mean vs. black

mean) divided by the sample-weighted average of the standard deviations

Is a way of determining differences among groups as a function of differences within the groups.


Conclusions• The use of ability tests requires careful attention by an

organization in the development of its selection programs.

• The traditional viewpoint of validation studies within a single organization is outdated.

• Cognitive ability tests are among the most valid of all selection tests for a large number of jobs.

• While cognitive tests may exhibit adverse impact, their use in selection can be defended against claims of discrimination.

• The goals and values of an organization will influence its choices and uses of selection instruments.


Mental Ability Tests and the Internet• Equivalence of Paper-and-Pencil and Electronic

Tests Test-taking behaviors differ in the two testing

environments. The use of technology does not appear to increase

errors. The use of timed electronic tests can be

technologically problematic. The interface design of electronic tests is an

important concern.


Testing on the Internet• Issues in Internet Testing

The suitability of a particular type of test (mental ability vs. other kinds of tests) for use on the Internet

Whether the test is used for selection or development The importance of the test score to the test taker The effects of cheating on the test’s validity The cost and feasibility of measures to reduce

cheating



SOURCE: Adapted from Denise Potosky and Philip Bobko, “Selection Testing via the Internet: Practical Considerations and Exploratory Empirical Findings,” Personnel Psychology 57 (2004): 1003–1034.

TABLE 11.8 Considerations Regarding the Use of Internet Tests

Effects of Coaching and Practice• Coaching Effects

Training appears to have minimal effect on test scores.

• Practice Effects Repetition improves test scores due to:

A better understanding of the test format and methods of responding

Reduction of test anxiety on subsequent tests Learning the specific skills tested

However, practice-increased scores did not translate into increased job training performance


Mechanical Ability Tests• Mechanical Ability

Characteristics that tend to make for success in work with machines and equipment

• Testing Methods Manual performance (assembly/manipulation) Written problems

• Abilities Measured Spatial visualization Perceptual speed and accuracy Mechanical information


Mechanical Ability Tests (cont’d)

• The Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test Is used for industrial jobs to measure the ability to

perceive and understand physical forces and mechanical elements in practical situations.

Uses pictures of familiar objects and scenes to ask questions requiring logical analysis.

is best used for assessing applicant for positions that require a grasp of the principles underlying the operation and repair of complex devices.

Is intended to measure an individual’s aptitude for learning mechanical skills.



Name ComparisonNeal Schmitt ____________________________ Frank SchmidtHubert Feild ____________________________ Herbert FieldChris Riordan ____________________________ Kris ReardanTim Judge ____________________________ Jim FudgeMurray Barrick ____________________________ Mick Mount

Number Comparison84644 ____________________________ 84464179854 ____________________________ 176845123457 ____________________________ 12457987342 ____________________________ 9873428877665994 ____________________________ 8876659954

TABLE 11.9 Example Items Similar to Items on the Minnesota Clerical Test

Physical Ability Tests• Reasons for Physical Ability Testing

More female applicants for male-dominated jobs Reducing the incidence of work-related injuries To determine the physical status of job applicants

• Legal Issues in Testing Physical Abilities Adverse impact for scores on physical ability tests

Tests must clearly be linked to critical job tasks that require physical abilities in their completion

Question is whether the tasks can be modified to reduce or eliminate these physical demands (i.e., reasonable accommodation for disabled applicants).


Physical Ability Tests (cont’d)

• Physical Abilities Analysis Static strength Dynamic strength Explosive strength Trunk strength Extent flexibility Dynamic flexibility Gross body coordination Stamina



SOURCE: Based on Joyce C. Hogan, “Physical Abilities,” in Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 2d ed., Vol. 2, ed. Marvin Dunnette and Leatta Hough (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1991).

TABLE 11.10 Three Components of Physical Performance


SOURCE: Based on Joyce C. Hogan, “Physical Abilities,” in Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 2d ed., Vol. 2, ed. Marvin Dunnette and Leatta Hough (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1991).

TABLE 11.10 Three Components of Physical Performance (cont’d)

Chapter Summary• Ability tests are

Useful as valid predictors of job performance Cheap when purchased from a test publisher Fast—most take 30 minutes or less to complete Easy—administered individually or in group settings Versatile—may come in several languages Scorable—have a ready-made scoring key Understandable—reflect knowledge that is job based Sometimes falsely marketed


Key Terms and Concepts• Par Lahy• Army Alpha• Ability tests• Aptitude tests• Achievement tests• Mental ability tests• Binet and Simon• Stanford-Binet

Intelligence Scale

• Otis Self-Administering Test of Mental Ability

• Wonderlic Personnel Test

• Project A• Differential validity• d-statistic• Physical ability tests


psy ability tests

Documents