Technical Report - International Military Testing Association

,b-.y
.._
HOS Evaluation Test Validation moiedurca
RAYMIND 0. WALDKOETTER
: US Army Eniirted Evaluation Center
‘.\_
‘-.._,
\
I’
, -
.
,
� � ����� ��
The following points will be covered with the intent to give e
condensed familiarization of this Center’o HOS Evaluation Past Procedures.
The technical aspects of how it is done may be uxxe readily
assimilated by checking vith the evaluation section and going to
selected referencee.
1. The emphasis on test validation has been reinforced by the use
of the special rating of job perfomance as a criterion.
2. The criterion is an appropriate rating sample of the job performance
a8 experienced by peers under the guidance of the rating device.
3. Test validation is concerned vith determining: first, just how
the total evaluation test correlates vith the criterion; second, what
makes up the valid portion and segments, and their individual and total
correlations; and third, just how the outline for test developent can
be used as a guide with the recommended nlnaber of item to increase
validity.
4. The validating procedure cmputations are coupleted with the
multiple correlation between EZT, CER, and the criterion, wfth an additional
validity coefficient given by the correlation between the weighted
scoring formula and criterion.
5. Validation activities will accelerate to give a hoped for
iutprersive continuity in the qualitative and quantitative test control
procedures.
The achievement of MOS test validation has always been a basic task
for USAEEC, but it has received a new impetus this paet March (1964) when
the decision was reached to tise a newly drafted special rating of job
perrformc:e as a criterion measure. Since, due to physical limitations,
it is not immediately possible to validate all HOS, the HOS consequently
oelected for validation were identified so that a maximun sampling of
the personnel evaluated would be obtained during the prescribed test
periods.
A short treatment of the criterion is in order h,:ra. and possfbly
a good word for peer ratings. An appropriate sampling of eM designated
in specified HOS are rated by at least 3 co-workers and 1 eupervleor.
Readability coefficients are estimated for ratings of each sample using
a one-way analysis of variance (Wirier, 1964). The rateee must have been
known by the raters at least one month, observed several times a week,
�
.
��
106
_____. .._ _ . --__--I_-. ..-
.
, .
�
�����
� �
��
.
��