<p> Latent growth curve modeling is an increasingly popular approach for evaluating longitudinal data. Researchers tend to focus on overall model fit information or component model fit information when evaluating a latent growth curve model (LGCM). However, there is also an interest in understanding a given individual's level and pattern of change over time, specifically an interest in identifying observations with aberrant patterns of change. Thus it is also important to examine model fit at the level of the individual. Currently there are several proposed approaches for evaluating person level fit information from a LGCM including factor score based approaches (Bollen &amp; Curran, 2006; Coffman &amp; Millsap, 2006) and person log-likelihood based approaches (Coffman &amp; Millsap, 2006; McArdle, 1997). Even with multiple methods for evaluating person-level information, it is unusual for researchers to report any examination of the person level fit information. Researchers may be hesitant to use person level fit indices because there are very few studies that evaluate how effective these person level fit indices are at identifying aberrant observations, or what criteria to use with the indices. In order to better understand which approaches for evaluating person level information will perform best for LGCMs, this research uses simulation studies to examine the application of several person level fit indices to the detection of three types of aberrant observations including: extreme trajectory aberrance, extreme variability aberrance, and functional form aberrance. Results indicate that examining factor score estimates directly can help to identify extreme trajectory aberrance, while approaches examining factor score residuals or examining a person log-likelihood are better at identifying extreme variability aberrance. The performance of these approaches improved with more observation times and higher communality. All of the factor score estimate approaches were able to identify functional form aberrance, as long as there were a sufficient number of observation times and either higher communality or a greater difference between the functional forms of interest.</p>

Context effects are a robust finding in psychology and are manifested in the form of assimilation effects and contrast effects. Assimilation effects occur when judgments of a target stimulus are biased toward the level of non-target, context stimuli. Contrast effects occur when judgments of a target stimulus are biased in the opposite direction of non-target context stimuli and are much more prevalent than assimilation effects. Limited research has been conducted on contrast effects in the area of industrial/organizational psychology and no study has yet examined contrast effects when target and non-target stimuli are observed simultaneously. The purpose of this study was to examine contrast effects in a group interaction setting (a leaderless group discussion (LGD) exercise of an assessment center) where all stimuli were observed simultaneously. Two factors were manipulated: the performance level of non-target stimuli (above standard and/or below standard candidates) and observation condition of the target stimulus (a standard candidate). In addition, the order in which the standard candidate was rated was counterbalanced. It was hypothesized that (1) contrast effects would occur in the LGD. One hundred, eighty-seven undergraduates were trained as raters and then viewed a videotape of a leaderless group discussion exercise in which a standard candidate was interacting either with two above standard candidates, two below standard candidates, or an above standard and a below standard candidate. Each videotape contained the same footage of the standard candidate; consequently, her performance was identical across conditions. Participants were assigned to observe one of the three candidates (the target candidate or one of the non-target candidates). During the rating session when the assessors discussed the performance of the candidates, performance of the standard candidate was discussed in either the first, second or third position. Individual ratings and consensus ratings were collected and analyzed. At the individual rating level, contrast effects were present in leaderless group discussion exercise ratings. Specifically, the standard candidate was rated significantly higher when performing with below standard candidates than with above standard candidates. The observation assignment had no significant influence on the magnitude of contrast effects; however, a leniency effect occurred for those assessors who were assigned to observe the standard candidate. Contrast effects were not present in the raters' consensus ratings. Conclusions, suggestions for future research, and implications for the study are discussed.

The social, collaborative, interpersonal, and interdependence demands of jobs, referred to as social-collaborative complexity (SCC), are rapidly expanding in the work place. One implication for human resources research is that the criterion-related validities of basic ability tests might be affected. This possibility is provocative, because although much research has shown that basic ability tests generally are valid predictors of performance in a wide range of jobs, increased SCC might modify that conclusion. Thus, a field study and a laboratory experiment were concurrently conducted to explore whether SCC moderates ability test validities. In the field study, measures of SCC for a wide range of jobs were obtained from the Position Analysis Questionnaire and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. For these same jobs, General Aptitude Test Battery validities were obtained from the United States Employment Service. Results suggested that several job-related measures of SCC significantly moderated GATB validities. Furthermore, the moderating effects of SCC were independent of the more predictable moderating effects of other job demands. The lab experiment was conducted to explore whether motivational aspects of SCC moderated test validities. Specifically, the effects of accountability on task performance and test validity were explored in individual and group contexts. Subjects in the 2 x 2 experiment completed, among other measures, a creative thinking ability test and a brainstorming task. Results suggested that ability, accountability, and social context interacted to affect performance, and accountability and social context both moderated test validity in a "moderated moderator" effect. Implications for the work place and suggestions for future research are discussed.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator's (MBTI) extensive use in businesses, educational institutions and in career counseling coupled with growing criticism regarding its validity demands that critical research answer the question of what it is that the MBTI measures. This research investigates three models of the underlying factors of the MBTI items (the MBTI Model, a model incorporating the five-factor model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1991), and a model based on an exploratory factor analysis (Sipps, Alexander, & Friedt, 1985)). One thousand and thirty individuals (N men = 407; N women = 753) completed the MBTI while participating in a career development service. Confirmatory factor analysis results indicated that although the MBTI Model explains responses slightly better than the five-factor model, it is not (in its present form) optimally explanatory. These results and exploratory factor analysis results identify areas where instrument changes and additional research could lead to a more valid and reliable instrument.

Three different measures of risk taking were compared to examine the support for a unitary trait of risk taking. The measures included the Sensation Seeking Scale, an experimental lottery, and a consumer product/activity risk perception questionnaire. The measures were administered to groups of subjects believed to differ in different types of risk taking propensity: gamblers, scuba divers, and students. Although differences between the subject groups were demonstrated on the individual measures, relationships between the measures were quite weak. These results indicate that references to risk taking behavior should be specified as applying to certain individual activities.

This study examined the relationship between characteristics of adaptive testing and test takers' subsequent reactions to the test. Participants took a computer adaptive test in which two features, the difficulty of the initial item and the difficulty of subsequent items, were manipulated. These two features of adaptive testing determined the number of items answered correctly by examinees and their subsequent reactions to the test. The data show that the relationship between test characteristics and reactions was fully mediated by perceived performance on the test. In addition, the impact of feedback on reactions to adaptive testing was also evaluated. In general, feedback that was consistent with perceptions of performance had a positive impact on reactions to the test. Implications for adaptive test design concerning maximizing test takers' reactions are discussed.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.