By Kimberly R. Leveridge (Brinkmeyer), Ph.D.,
Personality assessment is useful for
describing an individual on characteristics which can not be directly
observed. Behaviors are visible to
people, but the reasons behind them and the motivations for them are not
observable. Psychological assessment
results provide a vocabulary for describing propensities and a view of the
“whys” behind the behaviors. This
information sets the stage for more effective employee and manager selection,
succession planning, team building, and professional development.
Test Development
During test development, the first question to answer is
“what to measure”. Items are then
written to reflect the behaviors associated with the dimension(s) being measured. For example, extroversion is defined as: interest in or behavior directed toward
others. Thus, these items might be
written to reflect the degree to which a person enjoys (or does not enjoy)
social settings, crowded events, and making presentations. Sample items focusing on extroversion might be
“in a group, I enjoy attracting attention to myself” or “I don’t care for
large, noisy crowds.”
Once a pool of test items are written—pool size is
determined by the number of dimensions being assessed and the number of items
deemed necessary to tap into each dimension—they are pilot tested to determine
the degree to which they correlate with each other, they differentiate people
(some endorse, some do not), and they are
reliable. Reliability is determined by
test-retest—subjects answer the question the same way on multiple
administrations—and by internal consistency—items which are designed to measure
extroversion tend to correlate, or hang-together.
Assessment Validation Step 1
The next step is to determine the validity of the measure,
which is a bit more complicated to explain.
First, there is what’s known as the test-test validation process which
correlates (see attachment for explanation of correlations) scores on our
instruments with other instruments.
These test-to-test correlations are conducted with instruments that are
hypothesized to have similar or related constructs and with instruments that
are hypothesized to be unrelated. For
example, the process of validating the CDR Character Assessment included having
subjects take the Character along with the ASVAB, PSI Basic Skills Test (both
should be unrelated), Myers-Briggs, SDS, Interpersonal Adjective Scales, BigFive Factor Markers, and the MMPI-2 (all of which should have some relationship
to the measures). These analyses resulted
in correlations that confirmed hypothesized relationships.
Assessment Validation Step 2
The next level of validation should include correlations
between test scores and relevant non-test indicators—such as actual performance
ratings. This step is taken to validate
(confirm or not) whether the instrument accurately measures the predicted
behavior and the impact on performance.
For example, those who have a high scores on the CDR Character
Assessment “Adjustment” scale and a high CDR Risk Assessment “Egotist” scale
will generally have higher self-ratings on 360 performance reviews. This translates to people who have higher
opinions about their own performance in comparison with the perceptions of
others. Thus, the correlations will be
higher between these scale scores and the resulting behavior ratings. The validation process is not simple and it
is important to perform statistical analyses using a variety of non-test
indicators and performance results. In
addition to performance reviews, other examples of non-test indicators may
include: sales results, customer
retention, customer complaints, accidents, turnover, errors, etc. We can provide summaries of this analysis or
actual sample validation studies conducted for clients.
When evaluating personality assessment measures or styles
inventories, it is important to determine whether the assessment authors
perform only the first level of validity analysis, i.e. test to test, or, also
validated the assessment results through correlations with actual performance
behaviors. The test development process
determines the applicability of the assessment results to workplace
decisions. As with our assessments, only
valid and reliable tools, as determined through the test development process,
are valid for selection decisions. In
other words, our measures correlate to actual results.
What is a Correlation?
Correlation
is a measure of how closely two variables move together through time, or the
degree to which two variables are associated.
A positive correlation exists when two variables increase or decrease
together. For
example, height and weight are positively correlated, meaning that as height
increases, so does weight. More of one means more of the other. A negative correlation exists when increases
in one variable are accompanied by decreases in the other, and vice versa. For
example, research might show that self-esteem and depression are
negatively correlated, indicating that as self-esteem increases incidence of
depression decrease.
More of one means less of the other.
What Does a Correlation Represent?
There is a
simple technique for illustrating the real size and importance of
correlations. The “binomial effect size
display” (BESD*) allows correlation coefficients to be interpreted in terms
of the percentage of correct classifications they represent.
Effect (Impact) Sizes Corresponding to Various Values of Correlations
|
||
Correlation
|
Success Rate Increased
|
Difference in Success Rates
|
.10
|
From .45 to .55
|
10%
|
.20
|
From .40 to .60
|
20%
|
.30
|
From .35 to .65
|
30%
|
.40
|
From .30 to .70
|
40%
|
.50
|
From .25 to .75
|
50%
|
* Adapted from “A Simple General Purpose
Display of Magnitude of Experimental Effect, by R. Rosenthal and; D. B.
Rubin. In Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74, 166-169.
About the Author: Kimberly Leveridge, Ph.D., is co-founder of CDR Assessment Group, Inc. and past Vice President of Research & Operations. She serves as CDR's Scientific Advisor and her current career is serving in a variety of talent development leadership roles within industry.
About the Author: Kimberly Leveridge, Ph.D., is co-founder of CDR Assessment Group, Inc. and past Vice President of Research & Operations. She serves as CDR's Scientific Advisor and her current career is serving in a variety of talent development leadership roles within industry.
Blogger Note: Kim wrote this piece some years back -- and it is the most clear and BEST explanation that I have found on how to know whether or not the assessments your are using or considering to use are valid. We hope this is helpful information to you!
Nancy Parsons
© 2004, CDR Assessment Group, Inc. Tulsa OK, All Rights Reserved.
© 2004, CDR Assessment Group, Inc. Tulsa OK, All Rights Reserved.
Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net