valid

(redirected from validities)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia.

valid

Having legal force.

References in periodicals archive ?
The two key types of validity are internal and external validities (see e.g.
To start with the key validities, internal validity can be defined as the extent to which a proposed causal relation is correct within a research design.
For example, in Hunter and Hunter's (1984) presentation of the US Employment Service validation studies, the mean validities found for the cognitive ability composite ranged from .23 to .58 for job performance, and from .50 to .65 for training success (depending on the job complexity).
The main conclusion to be drawn from these US results is that the magnitude of the predictive validities estimated varies according to the type of cognitive ability test used, and that GMA or overall cognitive ability generally appears to be a better predictor of future job performance and training success than specific cognitive ability tests.
Criterion-related validities can be expected to differ for situational and past behaviour interview questions.
A mere comparison of meta-analytic point estimates of validity is typically insufficient, since such a comparison fails to take account of the entire range of validities within which the population mean(s) could reasonably fall.
Table 3 from Robertson & Kinder presents the average single-scale validities for 12 criterion areas, using 20 validity studies.
Maintaining an optimal number of dimensions assessed in each exercise reduced the possibility of interpreting the finding of low construct validities as an artifact of excessive information-processing demands requiring assessors to differentiate between behaviours that load on too many different factors.
corrections for measurement error or range restriction in predictors and/or criteria); (3) partial inclusions of non-cross-validated validities; (4) differences in the selection of studies based on variations in the methodological standards required of primary studies; (5) unreliabilities in the coding of study characteristics; and (6) a lack of agreement on the calculation of effect sizes (Wanous, Sullivan & Malinak, 1989).
He found that observed validity coefficients vary considerably from study to study even when jobs and tests were very similar, and his findings are consistent with the results of Hull (1928), who found frequent and unpredictable differences in validities. Dunnette (1963, 1966) saw Ghiselli's results as a consequence of the simplicity of the traditional selection model (Blum & Naylor, 1968; Guion, 1965, 1976; Korman, 1971; Lawshe, 1948; Thorndike, 1949).
Barrick & Mount (1991) found estimates of true validities of similar magnitudes (after correction for unrellability and range restriction).
Second, the validities reported in several panel interview studies appear to be closing the validity gap between the interview and pre-employment tests.