Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Bolton, B. (Ed.) (1987).Handbook of measurement and evaluation in rehabilitation (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Bolton, B. (Ed.) (1988).Special education and rehabilitation testing: Current practices and reviews. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Bolton, B., & Cook, D.C. (Eds.) (1980).Rehabilitation client assessment. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
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.
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.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing (1985).Manual for Form E of the 16 PF. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Intran Corporation (1982).Manual for the USES Interest Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: Intran Corporation.
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.
Morelock, K., Roessler, R., & Bolton, B. (1987). The Employability Maturity Interview: Reliability and construct validity.Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 20, 53–59.
Neff, W. S. (1985).Work and human behavior (3rd ed.). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bolton, B., Brookings, J.B. Prediction of job satisfactoriness for workers with severe handicaps from aptitudes, personality, and training ratings. J Bus Psychol 7, 359–366 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01015760
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01015760