No description available.

The purpose of the present study was to attempt to reconcile the seemingly overwhelming body of empirical evidence arguing for the preeminence of general cognitive ability in relation to specific abilities with the general resistance of the majority of Industrial-Organizational psychologists to such a position. The contention of the present study was that the primary evidence used to support the view that specific abilities are of little importance relative to general cognitive ability did not faithfully represent the classic selection model and was based on tenuous assumptions about the operationalizations of general and specific cognitive abilities. By virtue of being defined in un-interpretable terms with respect to content or function, prior operationalizations of specific abilities did not lend themselves to logical and theoretical relationships with job specific job performance. The general thesis of the present study was that if a "construct oriented approach" that is largely based on this classic selection model were implemented, a composite of psychologically interpretable job related specific abilities would prove equivalent or even superior to general cognitive ability in the prediction of job performance. Results suggest implementation of the construct oriented approach demonstrates potential for the value of this approach with respect to balancing criterion related validity and social equity. / Ph. D.

The Borg Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) Scale has proven to be a highly popular instrument in measuring the subjective responses of individuals to a given work or exercise task. Historically, the instrument was designed to correlate highly with the heart rates in young-to-middle-aged men performing various tasks. The body of literature, however, has revealed inconsistencies in the extent of just how strong the relationship is between ratings of perceived exertion and various physiological criterion variables, most notably, heart rate. In addition, most studies have invoked the question of whether the criterion-related validity coefficients derived from the relationship between ratings of perceived exertion and a specified physiological criterion variable are just as valid as those for which the Borg RPE Scale was originally performed. A meta-analysis, therefore, was undertaken to determine the magnitude of the relationship between ratings of perceived exertion scores and each of three commonly used physiological measures or criterion variables: heart rate, blood lactate, and oxygen uptake. Results show that by using Tests of Homogeneity for each physiological criterion variable, the observed sample size-weighted validity coefficients are heterogeneous. The median of the mean sample size-weighted validity coefficients is .574 for heart rate, .561 for blood lactate, and .480 for oxygen uptake. Each study in the meta-analysis was grouped by the study characteristics of subject gender, fitness level, RPE Scale, exercise type, exercise protocol, and study quality. For heart rate, the highest validity coefficients are those in which the subjects are highly fit, the exercise type is fairly unusual, such as swimming, and the subjects are required to maximally exert themselves. For blood lactate, the highest validity coefficients are for females, healthy-inactive subjects, the 15-point RPE Scale, treadmill use, and swimming. For oxygen uptake, the highest validity coefficients between ratings of perceived exertion and oxygen uptake are for swimming. In a meta-analysis of study effects, when the validity coefficients are analyzed by study, the resultant mean validity coefficients are only somewhat higher (ratings of perceived exertion and heart rate, .657; ratings of perceived exertion and blood lactate, .642; ratings of perceived exertion and oxygen uptake, .609) than those obtained using sample size-weighted validity coefficients. Finally, corrections for bias generally resulted in increased validity coefficients and decreased variances.

Personality, as a frequently used predictor of job performance, has often been criticized for its low criterion-related validity when compared to cognitive tests and some other predictors. The present study investigated incremental validity of narrow-trait personality to distinguish predictive from non-predictive facets of Conscientiousness and Extraversion dimensions. In addition, some intermediate mechanisms that may link the two personality dimensions with the criterion, such as different types of person-environment (P-E) fit and job involvement variables, were tested as well. The institution's job performance scale, NEO-PI-3 personality scale, person-organization (P-O) fit, needs-supplies (N-S) fit, demands-abilities (D-A) fit, job involvement questionnaire (JIQ), and demographic measures were administered in an online survey to 295 professional and civil service employees of a midsize Midwestern university. The sample was predominantly female and Caucasian with a mean age of 45.8 years and a median length of current employment of 5.1 years. Both personality dimensions were positively related to overall job performance. Conscientiousness was a stronger predictor of task performance, whereas Extraversion was related more consistently to contextual performance. In stepwise multiple regression analyses containing facets of personality dimensions as predictors of overall job performance, Competence emerged as the only facet of Conscientiousness, and Warmth and Assertiveness as the only facets of Extraversion that accounted for a meaningful amount of variance in the criterion. The use of narrow-trait personality to predict overall job performance enhances criterion-related validity of the construct and renders it a more efficient predictor of job performance than global-trait personality. Among the potential mediators, P-O and D-A fit partially mediated the personality-performance relationship providing evidence for the importance of perceptions of congruence in values and the ability to meet demands of the job. Current results are considered in light of limitations. Implications for theory, research, and practice, as well as future research directions are discussed.

A replication of an original study of managerial assessment centers performed by Sackett and Dreher (1982) is presented. Their major finding, indicating that assessment centers lack key tenets of internal construct validity, was corroborated in this study of a hotel managers' assessment center. This hotel managers' assessment center is also found to be externally valid using criterion-related validity. The argument is posed that assessment centers, as standardized tests of complex behavioral traits, appear to be operating outside the bounds of normal test construction principles. Five key explanations for this paradox are offered to guide much needed future research in this area. Additionally, a description of commonly utilized assessment center activities is offered the reader.

In recent years, meta-analytic reviews have estimated validities for the use of personality scales in the prediction of job performance from an array of empirical studies. A variety of personality measures were used in the original studies, and procedures and decisions concerning the categorization of these measures into Big Five personality factors have differed among reviewers. An underlying assumption of meta-analysis is that the predictors across included studies are essentially the same, as is the criterion. If this is not the case, then problems arise for both theoretical reasons and practical applications. If predictors that are not highly correlated are combined in a meta-analysis, then the theoretical understanding of antecedents and consequents of the predictors will be clouded. Further, combining predictors that are not essentially the same may obscure different relations between predictors and criteria, that is, test may operate as a moderator. To meet the assumption of similarity, systematic methods of categorizing personality scales are advised. Two indicators of scale commensurability are proposed: 1) high correlations among predictor scales and 2) similar patterns of correlations between predictor scales and job-related criteria. In the current study, the similarity of the most commonly used personality scales in organizational contexts was assessed based on these two indicators. First, meta-analyses of correlations between scales were conducted. Second, subgroup meta-analyses of criterion-related validity were examined, with specific personality scale and criterion as moderators. Correlations between criterion-related validity and certain sample characteristics were also conducted to determine if sample characteristics act as moderators of validity. Additionally, an examination of personality scale reliabilities was conducted. Results reveal that assumptions of similarity among personality measures may not be entirely met. Whereas meta-analyzed reliability and criterion-related validity coefficients seldom differed greatly, scales of the "same" construct were only moderately correlated in many cases. Although these results suggest that previous meta-analytic results concerning reliability and criterion-related validity are generalizable across tests, questions remain about the similarity of personality construct conceptualization and operationalization. Further research into comprehensive measurement of the predictor space is suggested.

<p>Syfte: Undersöka den kriterierelaterade validiteten, mellanbedömarreliabiliteten och användarvänligheten för MEONF, ett screeninginstrument för bedömning av risk för undernäring. Metoder: Hundra patienter inkluderades och nutritionsstatus bedömdes med Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) som här anses vara golden standard samt screenades med Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) och Minimal Eating Observation and Nutrition Form (MEONF). Resultat: Sjuksköterskorna ansåg MEONFs instruktioner och frågor lätta att förstå, svara på (100 %) samt att frågorna var angelägna (98 %). Instrumentet hade acceptabel sensitivitet (0.83) och specificitet (0.78) jämfört med MNA. Sensitiviteten var högre än den som fanns mellan MUST och MNA (0.57). När BMI ersattes med vadomkrets erhölls likvärdiga resultat (sensibilitet 0.83 specificitet 0.79) för MEONF i förhållande till MNA. Mellanbedömarreliabiliteten var hög (kappa 0.81). Sammanfattning: MEONF har bra validitet jämfört med MNA, med hög mellanbedömarreliabilitet. När BMI ersattes med vadomkrets bibehölls precisionen vilket är viktigt när vikt och längd är svåra att erhålla. Hög sensitivitet är angeläget vid screening för undernäring och i det avseendet fungerar MEONF bättre än MUST. En fundamental vinst med MEONF är att instrumentets kriterier upplevs som meningsfulla, för att vissa svårigheter kan avhjälpas med omvårdnadsåtgärder.</p><p>Syfte: Undersöka den kriterierelaterade validiteten, mellanbedömarreliabiliteten och användarvänligheten för MEONF, ett screeninginstrument för bedömning av risk för undernäring.</p><p>Metoder: Hundra patienter inkluderades och nutritionsstatus bedömdes med Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) som här anses vara <em>golden standard</em> samt screenades med Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) och Minimal Eating Observation and Nutrition Form (MEONF).</p><p>Resultat: Sjuksköterskorna ansåg MEONFs instruktioner och frågor lätta att förstå, svara på (100 %) samt att frågorna var angelägna (98 %). Instrumentet hade acceptabel sensitivitet (0.83) och specificitet (0.78) jämfört med MNA. Sensitiviteten var högre än den som fanns mellan MUST och MNA (0.57). När BMI ersattes med vadomkrets erhölls likvärdiga resultat (sensibilitet 0.83 specificitet 0.79) för MEONF i förhållande till MNA. Mellanbedömarreliabiliteten var hög (kappa 0.81).</p><p>Sammanfattning: MEONF har bra validitet jämfört med MNA, med hög mellanbedömarreliabilitet. När BMI ersattes med vadomkrets bibehölls precisionen vilket är viktigt när vikt och längd är svåra att erhålla. Hög sensitivitet är angeläget vid screening för undernäring och i det avseendet fungerar MEONF bättre än MUST. En fundamental vinst med MEONF är att instrumentets kriterier upplevs som meningsfulla, för att vissa svårigheter kan avhjälpas med omvårdnadsåtgärder.</p> / <p>Rationale: Analyse the criterion related validity, interrater reliability and the usefulness of MEONF, an instrument for undernutrition risk screening. Methods: 100 patients were included and assessed with Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) regarded as golden standard and screened with Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) as well as Minimal Eating Observation and Nutrition Form (MEONF). Results: Nurses regarded MEONF instructions and questions easy to understand, easy to answer (100%) and questions as being important (98%). It had acceptable sensitivity (0.83) and specificity (0.78) in relation to MNA. Sensitivity was higher than found between MUST and MNA (0.57). Replacing BMI with Calf Circumference (CC) gave equivalent results (sensibility 0.83, specificity 0.79) in relation to MNA. Interrater reliability was high (kappa 0.81). Conclusions: MEONF has good validity in relation to MNA and high interrater reliability. If replacing BMI with CC the precision is maintained, which is important in cases were weight or height is difficult to obtain. Having high sensitivity is a major concern for nutritional screening instruments and in that respect MEONF works better than MUST. One fundamental gain with MEONF is that the instruments criteria are experienced as clinically meaningful, in that some observed difficulties can be managed by nursing interventions.</p>

Syfte: Undersöka den kriterierelaterade validiteten, mellanbedömarreliabiliteten och användarvänligheten för MEONF, ett screeninginstrument för bedömning av risk för undernäring. Metoder: Hundra patienter inkluderades och nutritionsstatus bedömdes med Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) som här anses vara golden standard samt screenades med Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) och Minimal Eating Observation and Nutrition Form (MEONF). Resultat: Sjuksköterskorna ansåg MEONFs instruktioner och frågor lätta att förstå, svara på (100 %) samt att frågorna var angelägna (98 %). Instrumentet hade acceptabel sensitivitet (0.83) och specificitet (0.78) jämfört med MNA. Sensitiviteten var högre än den som fanns mellan MUST och MNA (0.57). När BMI ersattes med vadomkrets erhölls likvärdiga resultat (sensibilitet 0.83 specificitet 0.79) för MEONF i förhållande till MNA. Mellanbedömarreliabiliteten var hög (kappa 0.81). Sammanfattning: MEONF har bra validitet jämfört med MNA, med hög mellanbedömarreliabilitet. När BMI ersattes med vadomkrets bibehölls precisionen vilket är viktigt när vikt och längd är svåra att erhålla. Hög sensitivitet är angeläget vid screening för undernäring och i det avseendet fungerar MEONF bättre än MUST. En fundamental vinst med MEONF är att instrumentets kriterier upplevs som meningsfulla, för att vissa svårigheter kan avhjälpas med omvårdnadsåtgärder. Syfte: Undersöka den kriterierelaterade validiteten, mellanbedömarreliabiliteten och användarvänligheten för MEONF, ett screeninginstrument för bedömning av risk för undernäring. Metoder: Hundra patienter inkluderades och nutritionsstatus bedömdes med Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) som här anses vara golden standard samt screenades med Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) och Minimal Eating Observation and Nutrition Form (MEONF). Resultat: Sjuksköterskorna ansåg MEONFs instruktioner och frågor lätta att förstå, svara på (100 %) samt att frågorna var angelägna (98 %). Instrumentet hade acceptabel sensitivitet (0.83) och specificitet (0.78) jämfört med MNA. Sensitiviteten var högre än den som fanns mellan MUST och MNA (0.57). När BMI ersattes med vadomkrets erhölls likvärdiga resultat (sensibilitet 0.83 specificitet 0.79) för MEONF i förhållande till MNA. Mellanbedömarreliabiliteten var hög (kappa 0.81). Sammanfattning: MEONF har bra validitet jämfört med MNA, med hög mellanbedömarreliabilitet. När BMI ersattes med vadomkrets bibehölls precisionen vilket är viktigt när vikt och längd är svåra att erhålla. Hög sensitivitet är angeläget vid screening för undernäring och i det avseendet fungerar MEONF bättre än MUST. En fundamental vinst med MEONF är att instrumentets kriterier upplevs som meningsfulla, för att vissa svårigheter kan avhjälpas med omvårdnadsåtgärder. / Rationale: Analyse the criterion related validity, interrater reliability and the usefulness of MEONF, an instrument for undernutrition risk screening. Methods: 100 patients were included and assessed with Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) regarded as golden standard and screened with Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) as well as Minimal Eating Observation and Nutrition Form (MEONF). Results: Nurses regarded MEONF instructions and questions easy to understand, easy to answer (100%) and questions as being important (98%). It had acceptable sensitivity (0.83) and specificity (0.78) in relation to MNA. Sensitivity was higher than found between MUST and MNA (0.57). Replacing BMI with Calf Circumference (CC) gave equivalent results (sensibility 0.83, specificity 0.79) in relation to MNA. Interrater reliability was high (kappa 0.81). Conclusions: MEONF has good validity in relation to MNA and high interrater reliability. If replacing BMI with CC the precision is maintained, which is important in cases were weight or height is difficult to obtain. Having high sensitivity is a major concern for nutritional screening instruments and in that respect MEONF works better than MUST. One fundamental gain with MEONF is that the instruments criteria are experienced as clinically meaningful, in that some observed difficulties can be managed by nursing interventions.

No description available.

<p>A Test Battery (TB) is a measurement method that is designed to assess a variety of ability constructs. The extent to which TB predicts future pilot performance has important implications for both flying organizations and applicants. The primary emphasis in the existing literature has been on scores of individual ability tests, in contrast to the scores of multiple ability tests that are typically indexed by composites derived from TBs. The selection literature lacks a focus on composite scores, and seldom links to the broad cognitive abilities that predominate TBs. The objective of this study was to investigate how the different broad ability constructs of TBs influence their predictive validities for pilot performance. Six ability groups were identified as the most common ability saturations of pilot selection TBs. On the basis of 89 studies and 118 independent samples, a series of meta-analyses were conducted to determine the criterion-related validity of the six categories of TBs for several criterions of pilot performance.</p> <p>The investigation revealed there was an overall small and positive relationship between TBs and flight performance. The six categories of cognitive ability TBs appeared to be valid predictors of pilot performance, and at least five of them generalize validity across studies and settings. More specifically, three sets of predictor groups were identified according to the magnitude of validity estimates. The highest validity group included <i>Work Sample</i> TBs (<i>r</i>=.34), the second highest validity group included TBs of <i>Acquired Knowledge</i>, <i>General Ability</i>, and <i>Motor Abilities</i> (<i>r</i>=.19, .18, and .17, respectively), and the lowest validity group included TBs of <i>Perceptual Processing</i> and <i>Controlled Attention</i> (<i>r</i>=.14 and .10, respectively).</p> <p>The results also indicated that there was substantial variability in the effect of cognitive abilities on flight performance, with evidence of moderators operating in most cases. Five potential moderator variables were examined that may moderate the TBs-performance relationship in flying. The analysis for the moderator variable of <i>the number of tests in the battery </i>(small battery/large battery), <i>regularity of TB use in pilot selection</i> (commonly used/uncommonly used), and <i>criterion level of measurement</i> (continuous/ordinal/dichotomous/ contingency table) revealed significant moderating effects on the correlations between flight performance and several types of test batteries. Other moderators related to <i>year of publication</i> (1987-1999/2000-2009/2010-2017) and <i>flying organization</i> (USAF/US Navy/Another military/Civilian) did not significantly influence the correlations between TBs and flight performance. The implications of the findings for practice are discussed, and recommendations for future research directions are provided.</p>