IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v3y2010i03p305-328_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation Is Like Motor Oil: Synthetic Is Better

Author

Listed:
  • Johnson, Jeff W.
  • Steel, Piers
  • Scherbaum, Charles A.
  • Hoffman, Calvin C.
  • Richard Jeanneret, P.
  • Foster, Jeff

Abstract

Although synthetic validation has long been suggested as a practical and defensible approach to establishing validity evidence, synthetic validation techniques are infrequently used and not well understood by the practitioners and researchers they could most benefit. Therefore, we describe the assumptions, origins, and methods for establishing validity evidence of the two primary types of synthetic validation techniques: (a) job component validity and (b) job requirements matrix. We then present the case for synthetic validation as the best approach for many situations and address the potential limitations of synthetic validation. We conclude by proposing the development of a comprehensive database to build prediction equations for use in synthetic validation of jobs across the U.S. economy and reviewing potential obstacles to the creation of such a database. We maintain that synthetic validation is a practically useful methodology that has great potential to advance the science and practice of industrial and organizational psychology.

Suggested Citation

  • Johnson, Jeff W. & Steel, Piers & Scherbaum, Charles A. & Hoffman, Calvin C. & Richard Jeanneret, P. & Foster, Jeff, 2010. "Validation Is Like Motor Oil: Synthetic Is Better," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 305-328, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:3:y:2010:i:03:p:305-328_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942600002479/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schmidt, Frank L. & Oh, In-Sue, 2013. "Methods for second order meta-analysis and illustrative applications," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 204-218.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:3:y:2010:i:03:p:305-328_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.