Technical Report - International Military Testing Association

.\
.
.
.
”
for the validutioo e8mple, item standard deviations, item varibccee,
item-test correlations, item-criterion correlations, indcxea of
reliability, and indexes of validity. Mr. Wry and Hr. Shirkey h&ve
presented in their reports, which treat the iten relationships, 8
wider di6cour6c vith an8lyeis and implications in this ares using the
needed examples for illustration.
The second pha6e, concerning maximization of test validity by item
alalection, ir appmached by tlimiruzttng item8 from the origin;ll evaiuation
te6t which contributed nothing to validity. Correlation coefficient8
appear in tabular form showing the relationehips between BSMA’s and each
BSHA and the criterion vith the coefficient computed to indicate the
validity of the revired evaluation teet.
The third phase of the sequence Fn the telt validating procedure6
occurs fn a m6ximlution of test validity wfth the optiml allocation6
of items acccrding to the test outline. Techniques of multiple correlation
uhfch determine optinval item ellocationa have been formulated
by HOr8t (1949) and Taylor (195C). Theee technique8 reflect function6
In relation to the correlations between B.SM’o, their reliabflitfcs, and
validities. The correla t ions, reliabilities, and validitiec are systematically
ctungcd. vhen the number of item per BSX4 are altered. By
increseing the less reliable Bs;yA’s. validity is further enlarged, provided
the valid vrriance is not measured alao by other BWA’r. After a clueter
aMly6i6 (Br*Jchter. 1954) of KiNA’s the Horst technique is applied.
(This procedure in applicable currently, but oay give way in deference to
the Wherry - WIncr mathod for factoring large numbcr~ of items.) In
tabular form a rwmary is given of the cluster analyeie showing each
ciuster, optlpal nrrmber of item6 per cluster, and the BWA’s per cluster
with the valid number of items In each BRIM, the proportlon of BStIh
ltem6 in each cluster, and the optiraal number of iteuis per BSHA.
From a ruemary reviev of the validating procedure8 used vfth the
te6t analysis, a brief description of the overall validity approach fa
desirable at this point. Since urch, some six MOS terts which eVAlUStU
mboot 17% of EM under the Army EES, have received validity analysis and
evaluation based upon the criterion of job performsme racingr.
The ssmples used rnnge from 30 to 129 and were checked to assure
reprerentative groupr. The evaluation test validity coefficients
ranged from .lO to .52. The CER had validity coefficients rangihg from
.20 t o .51. The multiple correlation coefficient6 betveen evaluation
test, CER, and the criterion ranged from .36 to .S5sdemostrating a
rlightly better prediction of validity from the BT and CER combined.
The corrected multiple correlation coefficients after ehrinkqe range
from .34 to .51.
. . . .
108
- .I
.
.