A clarifying note on differences between the W. F. Cascio, J. Outtz, S. Zedeck, and I. L. Goldstein (1991) and H. Aguinis, J. M. Cortina, and E. Goldberg (1998) banding procedures

被引：2
|
作者：
Aguinis, H
Cortina, JM
Goldberg, E
机构：
[1] Univ Colorado, Grad Sch Business Adm, Denver, CO 80217 USA
[2] George Mason Univ, Dept Psychol, Fairfax, VA 22030 USA
[3] Towers Perrin, San Francisco, CA USA
来源：
HUMAN PERFORMANCE | 2000年 / 13卷 / 02期
关键词：
D O I：
10.1207/s15327043hup1302_5
中图分类号：
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号：
040203 ;
摘要：
Hanges, Grojean, and Smith (this issue) reaffirmed the Cascio, Outtz, Zedeck, and Goldstein (1991) "traditional" test score banding procedure and argued that the "alternative" method proposed by Aguinis, Cortina, and Goldberg (1998) is problematic. We clarify 4 differences between the traditional and alternative procedures. We suggest once again that the traditional approach be used when evidence regarding criterion-related validity is not available and that the alternative approach be used when this information is available.
引用
收藏
页码：199 / 204
页数：6
相关论文
共 50 条
12345