Figure 4-1 lacks precision in that

Figure 4-1 lacks precision in that there is a great deal of leeway in determining when
immediate criteria become intermediate criteria. Immediate criteria are near-terrn measures, such
as test scores on the final day of training class or measurement of the rookie quarterback's
performance in his flust game. Intennediate criteria are obtained at a later time, usually about six
months after initial measurement (i.e., supervisory ratings of performance, work sample
performance tests, or peer ratings of effectiveness). Summary criteria are expressed in terms of
longer-term averages or totals. Summary criteria are often useful because they avoid or balance
out short-term effects or trends and errors of observation and measurement. Thus, a trainee's
average performance on weekly tests during six months of training or a student's cumulative
college grade-point average is taken as the best estimate of his or her overall performance.
Summary criteria may range from measurements taken after three months' performance, to those
taken after three to four years' performance, or even longer.
Temporal dimensionality is a broad concept, and criteria may be "dynamic" in three
distinct ways: (1) changes over time in average levels of group performance, (2) changes over
time in validity coefficients, and (3) changes over time in the rank ordering of scores on the
criterion (Barrett, Caldwell, & Alexander, 1985).
Regarding changes in group performance over time, Ghiselli and Haire (1960) followed
the progress of a group of investment salespeople for 10 years. During this period, they found a
650 percent improvement in average productivity, and still there was no evidence of leveling off!
However, this increase was based only on those salespeople who survived on the job for the full
10 years; it was not true of all of the salespeople in the original sample. To be able to compare the
productivity of the salespeople, their experience must be the same, or else it must be equalized in
some manner (Ghiselli & Brown, 1955). Indeed, a considerable amount of other research
eyidence cited by Barrett et al. (1985) does not indicate that average productivity improves
significantly over lengthy time spans.
Criteria also might be dynamic if the relationship between predictor (e.g., preemployment
test scores) and criterion scores (e.g., supervisory ratings) fluctuates over time (e.g., Jansen &
Vinkenburg, 2006). About half a century ago, Bass (1962) found this to be the case in a 42-month
investigation of salespeople's rated performance. He collected scores on three ability tests, as well
as peer ratings on three dimensions, for a sample of 99 salespeople. Semiannual supervisory merit
ratings served as criteria. The results showed patterns ofvalidity coeffrcients for both the tests and
the peer ratings that appeared to fluctuate erratically over time. However, he reached a much
different conclusion when he tested the validity coefficients statistically. He found no significant
differences for the validities of the abiliry tests, and when peer ratings were used as predictors,
only 16 out of 84 pairs of validity coefficients (roughly 20 percent) showed a statistically
significant difference (Banett et al., 1985).
Researchers have suggested two hypotheses to explain why validities might change over
time. One, the changing task model, suggests that while the relative amounts of ability possessed
by individuals remain stable over time, criteria for effective performance might change in
importance. Hence, the validity of predictors of performance also might change. The second
model, known as the changing subjects model, suggests that while specific abilities required for
effective performance remain constant over time, each individual's level of ability changes over
time, and that is why validities might fluctuate (Henry & Hulin, 1987). Neither of the above
models has received unqualifred support- Indeed, proponents of the view that validity tends to
decrease over time (Henry & Hulin, 1987, 1989) and proponents of the view that validity
remains stable over time (Ackerman, 1989; Barrett & Alexander, 1989) agree on only one point:
Initial performance tends to show some decay in its correlation with later performance. However,
when only longitudinal studies are examined, it appears that validity decrements are much more
common than are validity increments (Henry & Hulin, 1989). This tends to support the view that
validities do fluctuate over time.
The third type of criteria dynamism addresses possible changes in the rank ordering of scores
on the criterion over time. This form of dynamic criteria has attracted substantial attention (e.g.,

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 2:

Precision lacks figure 4-1 in that there is a Great Deal of leeway in determining when
criteria become immediate Intermediate criteria. Terrn criteria are near-immediate measures, such
As Test Scores on the Final Day of Training Class or measurement of the Rookie Quarterback's
Performance in his Flust Game. Intennediate criteria are obtained at a later time, usually About Six
Months after initial measurement (IE, Supervisory ratings of Performance, Work sample
tests Performance, or peer ratings of effectiveness). Summary criteria are expressed in terms of
Longer-term averages or totals. Summary criteria are often useful because they Avoid or balance
out short-term effects or Trends and Errors of Observation and measurement. Thus, a trainee's
average Performance on Weekly tests during Six Months of Training or a student's cumulative
College grade-Point average is taken As the Best Estimate of his or Her overall Performance.
Summary criteria May Range from measurements taken after Three Months' Performance, to. those
taken after Three to Four years' Performance, or even Longer.
Temporal dimensionality is a Broad Concept, and criteria May be "Dynamic" in Three
Distinct Ways: (1) changes over time in average levels of Group Performance, (2) changes. over
time in Validity coefficients, and (3) changes over time in the rank Ordering of Scores on the
Criterion (Barrett, Caldwell, & Alexander, 1985).
Regarding changes in Group Performance over time, Ghiselli and O'Haire (1,960th) followed
the Progress. of a group of investment salespeople for 10 years. During this period, they Found a
650 percent average Improvement in Productivity, and still there was no Evidence of leveling off!
However, this increase was based only on those salespeople Who survived on the Job for the full
10 years; it was not true of all of the salespeople in the original sample. To be Able to compare the
Productivity of the salespeople, their Experience must be the Same, or Else it must be equalized in
Some manner (Ghiselli & Brown, 1955). Indeed, a considerable amount of Other Research
Eyidence cited by Barrett et Al. (The 1,985th) does not indicate that average Productivity improves
significantly over lengthy time spans.
Criteria also Might be Dynamic if the Relationship between Predictor (eg, Preemployment
Test Scores) and Criterion Scores (eg, Supervisory ratings) fluctuates over time (eg, Jansen &.
Vinkenburg, 2006). About Half a Century ago, Bass (1,962) Found this to be a 42-month in the Case
Investigation of salespeople's rated Performance. He Collected Scores Three on ability tests, As well
As peer ratings on Three dimensions, for a sample of 99 salespeople. Semiannual Supervisory Merit
As served ratings criteria. Patterns Showed the results Ofvalidity Coeffrcients for both the tests and
the peer ratings that appeared to fluctuate erratically over time. However, He reached a much
different conclusion when He tested the Validity coefficients statistically. He Found no significant
differences for the Validities of the Abiliry tests, and when peer ratings were used As predictors,
only 16 out of 84 pairs of Validity coefficients (roughly 20 percent) Showed a statistically
significant difference (Banett et Al., 1,985).
Researchers have SUGGESTED Two hypotheses to Explain why Validities Might Change over
time. One, changing the Task Model, suggests that while the Relative amounts of ability possessed
by individuals remain Stable over time, criteria for effective Performance Might Change in
importance. Hence, the validity of predictors of performance also might change. The Second
Model, changing the subjects Known As Model, suggests that while specific abilities required for
effective Performance Constant remain over time, each individual's level of ability changes over
time, and that is why Validities Might fluctuate (Henry & Hulin, 1987). Neither of the above
models has received Unqualifred Support- Indeed, proponents of the View that Validity tends to
Decrease over time (Henry & Hulin, one thousand nine hundred and eighty-seven, 1,989) and proponents of the View that Validity
remains Stable over time (Ackerman, 1 989; & Barrett. Alexander, 1989) Agree on only one Point:
Initial Performance tends to Show Some Decay in correlation with ITS Performance later. However,
when only longitudinal Studies are examined, it appears that Validity decrements are much More
common than are Validity increments (Henry & Hulin, the 1,989th). This tends to Support the View that
Validities do fluctuate over time.
The third criteria Type of dynamism addresses possible changes in the rank Ordering of Scores
on the Criterion over time. This form of dynamic criteria has attracted substantial attention (eg,.