measurement mana 4328 dr. jeanne michalski [email protected]

32
Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski [email protected]

Upload: june-hicks

Post on 19-Jan-2016

223 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Measurement

MANA 4328

Dr. Jeanne Michalski

[email protected]

Page 2: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Employment Tests

Employment Test An objective and standardized measure of a sample

of behavior that is used to gauge a person’s knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) in relation to other individuals.

Pre-employment testing hasthe potential for lawsuits.

Page 3: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Classification of Employment Tests

Cognitive Ability Tests Aptitude tests

Measures of a person’s capacity to learn or acquire skills.

Achievement tests Measures of what a person knows or can do right

now. Personality and Interest Inventories

“Big Five” personality factors: Extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,

neuroticism, openness to experience.

Page 4: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Classification of Employment Tests (cont’d) Physical Ability Tests

Must be related to the essential functions of job. Job Knowledge Tests

An achievement test that measures a person’s level of understanding about a particular job.

Work Sample Tests Require the applicant to perform tasks that are

actually a part of the work required on the job.

Page 5: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Reliability: Basic Concepts

Observed score = true score + error Error is anything that impacts test scores that is not

the characteristic being measured Reliability measures error

Lower the error the better the measure Things that can be observed are easier to measure

than things that are inferred

Page 6: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Basic Concepts of Measurement

1. Variability and comparing test scores Mean / Standard Deviation

2. Correlation coefficients

3. Standard Error of Measurement

4. The Normal Curve Many people taking a test Z scores and Percentiles

Page 7: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

EEOC Uniform Guidelines

Reliability – consistency of the measureIf the same person takes the test again will he/she earn the

same score?

Potential contaminations: Test takers physical or mental state Environmental factors Test forms Multiple raters

Page 8: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Reliability Test Methods

Test – retest Alternate or parallel form Inter-rater Internal consistency

Methods of calculating correlations between test items, administrations, or scoring.

Page 9: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Correlation

How strongly are two variables related? Correlation coefficient (r) Ranges from -1.00 to 1.00 Shared variation = r2

If two variables are correlated at r =.6 then they share .62 or 36% of the total variance.

Illustrated using scatter plots Used to test consistency and accuracy of measure

Page 10: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Correlation Scatterplots

Figure 5.3

Page 11: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Summary of Types of Reliability

Compare scores within T1

Compare Scores across T1 and T2

Objective Measures

(Test items)

Internal Consistency or

Alternate FormTest-retest

Subjective Ratings

Interrater –

Compare different Raters

Intrarater –

Compare same Rater different times

Page 12: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Standard Error of Measure (SEM)

Estimate of the potential error for an individual test score

Uses variability AND reliability to establish a confidence interval around a score

95% Confidence Interval (CI) means if one person took the test 100 times, 95 of the scores will fall within the upper and lower bounds.

SEM = SD * √ (1- reliability)

There is a 5% chance that scores observed outside the CI are due to chance, therefore the differences are “significant”.

Page 13: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Standard Error of Measure (SEM)

SEM = SD * √ (1- reliability)

Assume a mathematical ability test has a reliability of .9 and a standard deviation of 10:

SEM = 10 * √ (1- .9) = 3.16

If an applicant scores a 50, the SEM is the degree to which the score would vary if she were retested on another day.

Plus or minus 2 SEM gives you a ~95% confidence interval.

50 + 2(3.16) = 56.32

50 – 2(3.16) = 43.68

Page 14: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Standard Error of Measure

If an applicant scores 2 points above a passing score and the SEM is 3.16 – then there is a good chance of making a bad selection choice.

If two applicants score within 2 points of one another and the SEM is 3.16 then it is possible that the difference is due to chance.

Page 15: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Standard Error of Measure

The higher the reliability, the lower the SEM

Std. Dev. r SEM

10 .96 2

10 .84 4

10 .75 5

10 .51 7

Page 16: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Confidence Intervals

Jim -- 40 Mary -- 50 Jen -- 60

SEM -2 SEM

+2 SEM

-2 SEM

+2 SEM

-2 SEM

+2 SEM

2 36 44 46 54 56 64

4 32 48 42 58 52 68

Do the applicants differ when SEM = 2?Do the applicants differ when SEM = 4?

Page 17: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Validity

Accuracy of the measure

Are you measuring what you intend to measure?

OR

Does the test measure a characteristic related to job performance?

Types of test validity Criterion – test predicts job performance

Predictive or Concurrent

Content – test representative of the job

Page 18: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Approaches to Validation

Content validity The extent to which a selection instrument, such as a

test, adequately samples the knowledge and skills needed to perform a particular job. Example: typing tests, driver’s license examinations,

work sample Construct validity

The extent to which a selection tool measures a theoretical construct or trait. Example: creative arts tests, honesty tests

Page 19: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Approaches to Validation

Criterion-related Validity The extent to which a selection tool predicts, or

significantly correlates with, important elements of work behavior. A high score indicates high job performance potential; a

low score is predictive of low job performance. Two types of Criterion-related validity

Concurrent Validity Predictive Validity

Page 20: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Approaches to Validation

Concurrent Validity The extent to which test scores (or other predictor

information) match criterion data obtained at about the same time from current employees. High or low test scores for employees match their respective

job performance. Predictive Validity

The extent to which applicants’ test scores match criterion data obtained from those applicants/ employees after they have been on the job for some indefinite period. A high or low test score at hiring predicts high or low job

performance at a point in time after hiring.

Page 21: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Tests of Criterion-Related Validity

Predictive validity

“Future Employee or Follow-up Method”

Test Applicants Performance of Hires

Time 1 6-12 mos. Time 2

Concurrent validity

“Present Employee Method”

Test Existing Employee AND Measure Performance

Time 1

Page 22: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Types of Validity

Job Duties

KSA’s Selection Tests

Job PerformanceCriterion-Related

Content-Related

Page 23: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Reliability vs. Validity

Validity Coefficients Reject below .11 Very useful above .21 Rarely exceed .40

Reliability Coefficients Reject below .70 Very useful above .90 Rarely approaches 1.00

Why the difference?

Page 24: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

More About Comparing Scores

Page 25: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

The Normal Curve

-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

.1% 2% 16% 50% 84% 98% 99.9%

Rounded Percentiles

Z Scores

Note: Not to Scale

Page 26: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Variability

How did an individual score compared to others? How to compare scores across different tests?

Test 1 Test 1 Test 2 Test 2

Bob Jim Sue Linda

Raw Score 49 47 49 47

Page 27: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Variability

How did an individual score compared to others? How to compare scores across different tests?

Test 1 Test 1 Test 2 Test 2

Bob Jim Sue Linda

Raw Score 49 47 49 47

Mean 48 48 46 46

Page 28: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Variability

How did an individual score compared to others? How to compare scores across different tests?

Test 1 Test 1 Test 2 Test 2

Bob Jim Sue Linda

Raw Score 49 47 49 47

Mean 48 48 46 46

Std. Dev 2.5 2.5 .80 .80

Page 29: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Score – MeanScore – MeanZ ScoreZ Score = =

Std. DevStd. Dev

Z Score or “Standard” Score

Test 1 Test 1 Test 2 Test 2

Bob Jim Sue Linda

Raw Score 49 47 49 47

Mean 48 48 46 46

Std. Dev 2.5 2.5 .80 .80

Z score .4 -.4 3.75 1.25

Page 30: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

The Normal Curve

Note: Not to Scale

Jim Bob Linda Sue

Page 31: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Z scores and Percentiles

Look up z scores on a “standard normal table” Corresponds to proportion of

area under normal curve

Linda has z score of 1.25 Standard normal table

= .9265 Percentile score of 92.65% Linda scored better than

92.65% of test takers

Z score Percentile

3.0 99.9%

2.0 97.7%

1.0 84.1%

0.0 50.0%

-1.0 15.9%

-2.0 2.3%

-3.0 .1%

Page 32: Measurement MANA 4328 Dr. Jeanne Michalski Michalski@uta.edu

Proportion Under the Normal Curve

Note: Not to Scale

Jim Bob Linda Sue