The October 2007 issue of the Assessment Council News is out with two great articles:
First, Dr. Mike Aamodt tackles the issue of validity co-efficients with Beauty May Be in the Eye of the Beholder, but is the Same True of a Validity Coefficient? (begins page 2)
In the article, Dr. Aamodt gathers data from experts in the assessment community on questions such as:
- Is there a minimum value for a validity coefficient that would generally be accepted by testing experts? If so, what is it?
(includes a great table summarizing where certain validity coefficient values have been referenced)
- What is the lowest uncorrected validity coefficient that you believe would indicate that an inference from a test has acceptable criterion validity?
- If a validity coefficient is statistically significant, is that enough to imply job relatedness?
The second article is by Natasha Riley and covers a topic near and dear to our hearts--Unproctored Internet Testing--The Technological Edge: Panacea or Pandora's Box? (page 11)
If the title seems a little odd and/or familiar, it's because it's a combination of various presentation titles from the 2007 IPMAAC conference where unproctored Internet testing was a hot topic. In the article, Natasha covers some pros and cons of this type of testing and describes how Riverside County in California is having some success with it.
Remember, internet-based testing does not have to be about selecting out. It can be about giving candidates tools they can use to determine whether they would be a good fit. Cheating is removed as an obstacle when we eliminate the motivation. Consider giving the applicant the "exam" and have them determine whether they want to move forward given their results and how they compare to successful job incumbents.
Anyway, kudos to IPMAAC for another illuminating issue of ACN. Keep 'em comin', and folks watch out for the call for proposals for the 2008 IPMAAC conference! (to be announced shortly)