A COMPARISON OF CRITERIA FOR TEST VALIDATION: A META‐ANALYTIC INVESTIGATION
通过元分析比较了五种测试验证标准（主管评分、主管排名、工作样本、产量和质量）的效度，发现主管排名和工作样本的平均效度高于主管评分和产量，而质量的可预测性低且不具普适性。
Meta‐analyses of validity coefficients from tests of clerical abilities for five criteria—supervisor ratings, supervisor rankings, work samples, production quantity, and production quality—were conducted, and the resulting expected true validities were compared. Ratings, rankings, work samples, and production quantity all resulted in high test validities. Validities resulting from ratings and quantity‐of‐production criteria were highly similar across tests. Validities resulting from rankings and work samples were on the average higher than those from ratings and quantity of production. The fifth criterion, quality of production, had low predictability and did not generalize across situations.