The thesis of this paper is that many proposed moderators in personnel psychology are probably illusory, having been created solely by belief in the law of small numbers. Evidence is presented that race as a moderator of test validity is one such illusory moderator. In addition, a model for validity generalization is described which, in addition to eliminating the need for criterion‐related validity studies under certain circumstances, strongly calls into question the idea that situations moderate test validity, i.e., the traditional doctrine of situational specificity of test validities. Calculations are presented which show that adequate statistical power in moderator research requires much larger sample sizes than have typically been employed. This requirement is illustrated empirically using validity data for the Army Classification Battery for 35 jobs and 21,000 individuals. These analyses show that (1) even when a moderator is generally assumed to be large, large samples are required to gauge its effect reliably and (2) large sample research may show that moderators that appear plausible and important a priori are nonexistent or trivial in magnitude. The practice of pooling across numerous small sample studies to obtain statistical power equivalent to that of large sample studies is recommended. In light of the evidence that many proposed moderators may not exist, the authors hypothesize that the true structure of underlying relationships in personnel psychology is considerably simpler than personnel psychologists have generally imagined it to be.
Personnel Psychology – Wiley
Published: Jun 1, 1978
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera