Current Validity

Project description
Current Validity
A properly constructed employment examination should result in test scores that predict job success and documentation that convinces the test

reviewer that the scores will be valid. A validation study provides evidence to support the use of predictor scores (Drasgow, Whetzel, & Oppler,

2007). As you discovered last week, there are three legal strategies for demonstrating validity: criterion-related validity, content validity, and

construct validity. Content validity is often the basis for meeting legal and professional requirements. Content validity requires the test

constructor to document the link between the job analysis and the selection process. What are the potential implications to an organization if a

validation study is not conducted before a test administration process begins? What are the implications of weak validation procedures or incomplete

documentation?
For this Discussion, consider the potential impacts of using a test that is not aligned with a job analysis. Use the Walden Library to search for two

examples to support your response.
Reference:
Drasgow, F., Whetzel, D. L., & Oppler, S. H. (2007). Strategies for test validation and refinement. In D. L. Whetzel & G. R. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied

measurement: Industrial psychology in human resources management (pp. 349384). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
With these thoughts in mind:
Post a brief explanation of two potential impacts of using tests not linked to job analyses. Then, explain one consequence of using a misaligned

testing process. Support your response with at least two examples from the current literature.
Your post should be three paragraphs. Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources.
Whetzel, D. L., & Wheaton, G. R. (Eds.) (2007). Applied measurement: Industrial psychology in human resources management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.
Chapter 4: Russell, T. L., & Peterson, N. G. (2007). Measurement plans and specifications. In D. L. Whetzel & G. R. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied

measurement: Industrial psychology in human resources management (pp. 97129). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Review)
Chapter 14: Borden, L. W., & Sharf, J. C. (2007). Developing legally defensible content valid selection procedures. In D. L. Whetzel & G. R. Wheaton

(Eds.), Applied measurement: Industrial psychology in human resources management (pp. 385402). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Arthur, W., Jr., & Villado, A. J. (2008). The importance of distinguishing between constructs and methods when comparing predictors in personnel

selection and research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 435442.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Bobko, P., Roth, P., & Potosky, D. (1999). Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternative

predictors, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 561588.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
De Corte, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Combining predictors to achieve optimal trade-offs between selection quality and adverse impact.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 13801393.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.