On the Mystery (or Myth) of Challenging Principles and Methods of Validity Generalization (VG) Based on Fragmentary Knowledge and Improper or Outdated Practices of VG
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice (2017), 10 (3), 479-485
9 Pages Posted: 11 Sep 2017 Last revised: 11 Sep 2018
Date Written: September 1, 2017
In their recent article, Tett, Hundley, and Christiansen (in press) stated in multiple places (e.g., pp. 7-9) that if there are good reasons to expect moderating effect(s) the application of an overall validity generalization (VG) analysis (meta-analysis) is “moot,” “irrelevant,” “minimally useful,” and “a misrepresentation of the data.” They used multiple examples and, in particular, a hypothetical example about the relationship between agreeableness and job performance. Four noteworthy problems with the above statements, other similar statements elsewhere in the Tett et al. article, and their underlying assumptions are discussed below along with alternative perspectives.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation