ESTIMATION OF EMPLOYMENT VALIDITIES BY LESS EXPERIENCED JUDGES
考察了经验较少的评判者（28位工业与组织心理学新博士）能否准确估计认知测试的效度，发现其估计随机误差约为专家的两倍，系统误差方向与专家相反，但多位经验较少评判者的平均估计与小样本实证研究结果相当。
In a previous study, Schmidt, Hunter, Croll and McKenzie (1983) demonstrated that estimates of the validity of cognitive tests made by highly trained and experienced judges are more accurate than empirical estimates obtained from small‐sample validity studies. The present study examined whether less experienced judges could also produce accurate estimates. Twenty‐eight recent Ph.D.'s in I/O Psychology estimated observed validities for the same 54 job‐test combinations used by Schmidt et al. (1983). The estimates of these judges contained about twice as much random error as the experts' estimates. Systematic error of the less experienced judges was also greater than that of the experts (.0732 vs .019). The systematic errors of the two sets of judges were in opposite directions: less experienced judges overestimated validities, on average, while experts underestimated them. The results show that the estimates of less experienced judges contain less information than those of experts, but also that averages of estimates of several less experienced judges are as accurate as those obtained from small‐sample empirical studies.