Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
F. Saal, R. Downey, M. Lahey (1980)
Rating the ratings: Assessing the psychometric quality of rating dataPsychological Bulletin, 88
R. Kass, K. Mitchell, Frances Grafton, Hilda Wing (1983)
Factorial Validity of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), Forms 8, 9 and 10: 1981 Army Applicant SampleEducational and Psychological Measurement, 43
K. Murphy (1982)
Difficulties in the statistical control of halo.Journal of Applied Psychology, 67
J. Campbell, Jeffrey Mchenry, L. Wise (1990)
MODELING JOB PERFORMANCE IN A POPULATION OF JOBSPersonnel Psychology, 43
N. Peterson, L. Hough, M. Dunnette, R. Rosse, Jams Houston, J. Toquam, Hilda Wing (1990)
PROJECT A: SPECIFICATION OF THE PREDICTOR DOMAIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SELECTION/ CLASSIFICATION TESTSPersonnel Psychology, 43
John Claudy (1978)
Multiple Regression and Validity Estimation in One SampleApplied Psychological Measurement, 2
Landy Landy, Farr Farr (1980)
Performance ratingPsychological Bulletin, 87
C. Campbell, P. Ford, Michael Rumsey, E. Pulakos, W. Borman, Daniel Felker, M. Vera, Barry Riegelhaupt (1990)
Development of multiple job performance measures in a representative sample of jobs.Personnel Psychology, 43
W. Young, J. Houston, James Harris, R. Hoffman, L. Wise (1990)
LARGE‐SCALE PREDICTOR VALIDATION IN PROJECT A: DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES AND DATA BASE PREPARATIONPersonnel Psychology, 43
J. Feldman (1986)
A note on the statistical correction of halo error.Journal of Applied Psychology, 71
Cooper Cooper (1981)
Ubiquitous haloPsychological Bulletin, 90
K. Mossholder, W. Giles (1983)
The Use of Partial Correlation to Control Halo in Performance RatingsEducational and Psychological Measurement, 43
Kass Kass, Mitchell Mitchell, Grafton Grafton, Wing Wing (1983)
Factor structure of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) Forms 8, 9, and 10: 1981 Army applicant sampleEducational and Psychological Measurement, 43
A predictor battery of cognitive ability, perceptual‐psychomotor ability, temperament/personality, interest, and job outcome preference measures was administered to enlisted soldiers in nine Army jobs. These measures were summarized in terms of 24 composite scores. The relationships between the predictor composite scores and five components of job performance were analyzed. Scores from the cognitive and perceptual‐psychomotor ability tests provided the best prediction of job‐specific and general task proficiency, while the temperament/personality composites were the best predictors of giving extra effort, supporting peers, and exhibiting personal discipline. Composite scores derived from the interest inventory were correlated more highly with task proficiency than with demonstrating effort and peer support. In particular, vocational interests were among the best predictors of task proficiency in combat jobs. The results suggest that the Army can improve the prediction of job performance by adding non‐cognitive predictors to its present battery of predictor tests.
Personnel Psychology – Wiley
Published: Jun 1, 1990
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.