Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 239–257 | Cite as

Validation of a clerical test using work samples

  • Chester I. Palmer
  • W. R. Boyles
  • John G. VeresIII
  • J. B. Hill


zWork simulation performance tests of filing and proofreading were the principal criteria in a validation study of a paper and pencil clerical selection test constructed by content-oriented methods; supervisory ratings were also used. Experiment 1 was a concurrent study using as subjects 59 provisional employees. Experiment 2 was a predictive study using as subjects 184 employees actually selected on the basis of test scores. In both studies, substantial correlations were found between scores on the selection test and performance on the work samples: Estimates of correlations in the original selection group ranged from .4 to .8. Correlations between the selection test and the supervisor ratings were significant in Experiment 1, but not in Experiment 2; even when significant, they were much lower than the correlations with the work samples. These results suggest the value of using work samples as criteria for validation studies. Implications for other validation efforts are considered.


Social Psychology Test Score Validation Study Social Issue Selection Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asher, J., & Sciarrino, J. (1974). Realistic work sample tests: A review.Personnel Psychology, 27, 519–533.Google Scholar
  2. Campion, J. E. (1972). Work sampling for personnel selection.Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 40–44.Google Scholar
  3. Cascio, W. G., & Phillips, N. (1979). Performance testing: A rose among thorns?Personnel Psychology, 32, 751–766.Google Scholar
  4. Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.),Educational Measurement, Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  5. Ebel, R. L. (1977). Comments on some problems of employment testing.Personnel Psychology, 30, 55–63.Google Scholar
  6. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1970). Guidelines on employee selection procedures.Federal Register, August 1, 1970,35, 12333–12335.Google Scholar
  7. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, & Department of Justice. (1978). Adoption by four agencies of uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures.Federal Register, August 25, 1978,43, 38290–38315.Google Scholar
  8. Federal Executive Agency. (1976). Guidelines on employee selection procedures.Federal Register, November 23, 1976,41, 51752–51759.Google Scholar
  9. Feild, H. S., Bayley, G. A., & Bayley, S. M. (1977). Employment test validation for minority and nonminority production workers.Personnel Psychology, 30, 37–46.Google Scholar
  10. Feild, H. S., & Holley, W. H. (1975a). Performance appraisal-An analysis of state-wide practices.Public Personnel Management, 4, 145–150.Google Scholar
  11. Feild, H. S., & Holley, W. H. (1975b). Traits in performance ratings-their importance in public employment.Public Personnel Management, 4, 327–330.Google Scholar
  12. Gael, S., Grant, D., & Ritchie, R. J. (1975). Employment test validation for minority and nonminority clerks with work sample criteria.Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 420–426.Google Scholar
  13. Gordon, M. F., & Kleiman, L. S. (1976). The prediction of trainability using a work sample test and an aptitude test: A direct comparison.Personnel Psychology, 29, 243–253.Google Scholar
  14. Guion, R. M. (1974). Open a new window: Validities and values in psychological measurement.American Psychologist, 29, 287–296.Google Scholar
  15. Guion, R. M. (1978). Scoring of content domain samples: The problem of fairness.Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 499–506.Google Scholar
  16. Holley, W. H., Feild, H. S., & Barnett, W. J. (1975). Performance Appraisal in the State of Alabama. Auburn University Department of Management Report to the Alabama State Personnel Board. September 1, 1975.Google Scholar
  17. Kleiman, L. S., & Faley, R. H. (1978). Assessing content validity: Standards set by the court.Personnel Psychology, 31, 701–713.Google Scholar
  18. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity.Personnel Psychology, 28, 563–575.Google Scholar
  19. Menne, J. W., McCarthy, W., & Menne, J. (1976). A systems approach to the content validation of employee selection procedures.Public Personnel Management, 5, 387–397.Google Scholar
  20. Messick, S. (1975). The standard problem: Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation.American Psychologist, 30, 955–956.Google Scholar
  21. Prien, E. P. (1977). The function of job analysis in content validation.Personnel Psychology, 30, 167–174.Google Scholar
  22. Schmidt, F. L., Greenthal, A. L., Hunter, J. E., Berner, J. G., & Seaton, F. W. (1977). Job sample vs. paper-and-pencil tests: Adverse impact and examinee attitudes.Personnel Psychology, 30, 187–197.Google Scholar
  23. Schmidt, F. L. Hunter, J. E., & Urry, V. W. (1976). Statistical power in criterion-related validity studies.Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 473–485.Google Scholar
  24. Tenopyr, M. L. (1977). Content-construct confusion.Personnel Psychology, 30, 47–54.Google Scholar
  25. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (1977).Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, DC: U.S. Employment Service.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chester I. Palmer
    • 1
  • W. R. Boyles
    • 2
  • John G. VeresIII
    • 2
  • J. B. Hill
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsAuburn University at MontgomeryUSA
  2. 2.Center for Government and Public AffairsAuburn University at MontgomeryUSA
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsAuburn University at MontgomeryUSA

Personalised recommendations