A WITHIN SETTING EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE SITUATIONAL SPECIFICITY HYPOTHESIS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION
通过分析Bender和Loveless（1958）的系列研究数据，检验了选拔程序效度的情境特异性假说，发现观察到的效度变异源于统计和测量伪影，而非真实情境差异，从而否定了该假说的两个主要预测。
The situational specificity hypothesis of selection procedure validity makes two predictions. The first is that variation in observed validities across settings is caused by real differences in what constitutes job performance. Validity generalization studies to date have provided disconfirming evidence for this prediction by showing that the observed variation is due to statistical and measurement artifacts. The second prediction is that if the situation (i.e., the organization, the setting, the job, the test and the criterion) is held constant, then validity findings will not vary from study to study. This article tests this prediction empirically using data from a unique series of studies reported by Bender and Loveless (1958). The results are contrary to the situational specificity hypothesis and consistent with the hypothesis that variation in observed validities is due to statistical and measurement artifacts that are unrelated to situations and settings. It is concluded that both major predictions of the situational specificity hypothesis have now been empirically disconfirmed.