Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 359–366 | Cite as

Prediction of job satisfactoriness for workers with severe handicaps from aptitudes, personality, and training ratings

  • Brian Bolton
  • Jeffrey B. Brookings
Full Articles


The predictive validity of General Aptitude Test Battery and Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire scores were compared to standard training ratings made by vocational instructors against the criterion of work performance measured by the Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scales for a sample of 106 employees with severe handicaps. The psychometric test variables were not correlated with the criterion; however, the training ratings were consistently predictive of the job satisfactoriness scores. These results suggest that the employment potential of job applicants with disabilities can be assessed more accurately using situational training ratings, as opposed to standardized psychometric test scores.


Predictive Validity Test Battery Satisfactoriness Score Work Performance Severe Handicap 
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. Bolton, B. (1986). Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scales. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.),Test critiques: Vol. 4 (pp. 434–439). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.Google Scholar
  2. Bolton, B. (Ed.) (1987).Handbook of measurement and evaluation in rehabilitation (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.Google Scholar
  3. Bolton, B. (Ed.) (1988).Special education and rehabilitation testing: Current practices and reviews. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  4. Bolton, B., & Cook, D.C. (Eds.) (1980).Rehabilitation client assessment. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brookings, J. B., & Bolton, B. (1989, August). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scales. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association meeting in New Orleans.Google Scholar
  6. Hunter, J. E. (1983).The dimensionality of the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) and the dominance of general factors over specific factors in the prediction of job performance. Washington, DC: U. S. Employment Service, U. S. Department of Labor.Google Scholar
  7. Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.Google Scholar
  8. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing (1985).Manual for Form E of the 16 PF. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Google Scholar
  9. Intran Corporation (1982).Manual for the USES Interest Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: Intran Corporation.Google Scholar
  10. Krug, S. E., & Johns, E. F. (1986). A large scale cross-validation of second-order personality structure defined by the 16 PF.Psychological Reports, 59, 683–693.Google Scholar
  11. Morelock, K., Roessler, R., & Bolton, B. (1987). The Employability Maturity Interview: Reliability and construct validity.Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 20, 53–59.Google Scholar
  12. Neff, W. S. (1985).Work and human behavior (3rd ed.). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.Google Scholar
  13. Sherman, S. W., & Robinson, N. M. (Eds.) (1982).Ability testing of handicapped people: Dilemma for government, science, and the public. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Bolton
    • 1
  • Jeffrey B. Brookings
    • 2
  1. 1.Arkansas Research and Training Center in Vocational RehabilitationUniversity of ArkansasFayetteville
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyWittenberg UniversitySpringfield

Personalised recommendations