- Stars (0)
Last Updated: 28-02-2020 17:42
This article explains how we need to reframe the idea of Validity as traditionally laid out by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing given that the probabilistic Rasch measurement approach is the only way to develop scientific people measures. This article does this in a way that contextualises how Rasch analysis of item response data explains, what we have for decades referenced in the Standards for Educational and Psychological testing, as Validity.
Final Judgement of the Court Case Between the Association of Test Publishers (ATP), the President of the Republic of South Africa, the Minister of Labour and the Health Professions Council of South Africa
The judgment was delivered on, 2 May 2017, by Judge Mali in the application brought forward on behalf of the Association of Test Publishers (“ATP”) as it pertains to section 8 of the Employment Equity Act. The respondents in this application were the President, the Minister of Labour and the Health Professions Council of South Africa (“the HPCSA”).
Judge Mali was called on to decide whether the procedures that were in place (for the purpose of classifying whether a test is a psychological test) were applicable to the necessary regulatory infrastructure for the purpose of the certificate called for in terms of section 8(d). The court needed to consider this with retrospect to what was in place on 1 August 2014.
It was conceded by the counsel of respondents that “other similar assessments” in section 8 referred to tests other than psychological tests of which, had no current procedure in place, or body authorised to issue a certificate as envisaged in the new section 8(d) with respect to “other similar assessments”.
The court was also called upon to determine whether the policy and guidelines of the HPCSA that were instituted in 1999 (for purposes of classifying psychological tests) could be said to be the appropriate regulatory infrastructure for purposes of issuing the certificate required in terms of the new section 8(d).
In the judgment handed by Judge Mali, she found in favour of ATP’s application and granted the following order:
That Proclamation 50 published in Government Gazette 37871 on 25 July 2014, is null and void and of no force or effect to the extent that it brings into operation the amendment of section 8 of Employment Equity Act, Act 55 of 1998 in terms of section 4 of the Employment Equity Amendment Act, 2013, Act 47 of 2013.
That Section 8 of the Employment Equity Act, Act 55 of 1998 as it pertained on 31 July 2014 continued, and continues, unabated as from the aforesaid date.
That this order be published by way of one notice in the Government Gazette, and a notice in each of the Sunday Times, Rapport and City Press.
That the respondents are ordered to pay costs of this application, costs to be paid jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved. Costs to include the cost of Senior Counsel.
- Stars (0)
Last Updated: 18-09-2019 22:17
Quantifying Brand Personality
No amount of blue-skying of behavioural human qualities and associated archetypes will turn something as nebulous as the concept of “brand” into something “Wantable”. Equally, trying to guess what drives people behaviourally or reflexively cannot be gleaned from arbitrary surveys or associated focus groups. If we hope to get this right we have to have the will to quantify our consumers using validated psychological instruments as well as infusing the target brand with a personality using the exact same methodology David Aaker alludes to this when he points out that,
“Some people may never aspire to have the personality of a competent leader but would like to have a relationship with one, especially if they need a banker or a lawyer. A trustworthy, dependable, conservative personality might be boring but might nonetheless reflect characteristics valued in a financial adviser, a lawn service, or even a car…”
- Stars (0)
Last Updated: 18-09-2019 22:09
Even at its most fundamental expectation of measurement, namely counting, the MBTI is deficient. We simply cannot use it to measure anything because it is firstly, not uni-dimensional and secondly, not reliable. Not because we hate Katharine and Isabel, but because they unwittingly used a flawed theory. Good psychological models like the Big Five-based assessments and the Occupational Personality Questionnaire of SHL can generally be revisited using proper measurement development tools like Rasch analysis because they are fundamentally sound from a construct perspective. They have the fundamentals of proper psychological measures in place and are not constrained by a single psychologist’s perspective on personality.
5 Stars (1)
Last Updated: 18-09-2019 21:00
Scale Construction Utilising the Rasch Unidimensional Measurement Model
Scales used to measure latent traits like behavioural attitudes are typically measured using classical statistical approaches. However, treating raw scores as interval scales present a fundamental problem when developing measures. To avoid these pitfalls human measurement instruments need to be constructed using Rasch analysis. The Rasch unidimensional model is currently the only method able to transform raw data into abstract equal-interval scales. The objective being for each personality dimension to have all items fit the Rasch model well, with the more endorsable items reliably preceding more difficult to endorse items in the direction of increasing levels of the underlying latent construct. Specifically, ensuring that all the items in each measured dimension manifests construct linearity and conjoint additivity. According to this view, if the data fit the model, then a scale with linearity and conjoint additivity will have been developed.
- Stars (0)
Last Updated: 18-09-2019 20:46
So Who Have We Really Been Hiring
Measurement as the “scientific” basis of the hiring process is generally unquestioned.The assumption is that the tools in use have been validated and are generally accepted in practice as being statistically sound. As a consequence, most of the ongoing efforts of recruiters have been focused on figuring out how the assessments are helping delivery of all these strategies such as “recruiting the best,” “building world-class talent,” “driving diversity through creative recruiting strategies,” “finding more innovative ways to hire the best,” and “building pipelines for leadership talent.”
Similarly, there’s debate about the transactional aspects of assessments — should we administer them with paper or online, for example. In other words, the use of assessments has become a given. In many ways, the perception of the recruiting community is that it has moved along to bigger and better things, as though the assessment part of the process has been neatly packaged and dealt with by virtue of its historical contribution.
The question, however, remains: Are the assessments we’re using in fact providing the solid foundation we assume they are?