Predictive Validity

7/31/2019 Predictive Validity

1/16


2/16


3/16

1. Obtain test scores from a group of respondents,

but do not use the test in making a decision.

2. At some later time, obtain a performance measure

for those respondents, and correlate these

measures with test scores to obtain predictive

validity.


4/16

EXAMPLES

For instance, we might theorize that a measure of math

ability should be able to predict how well a person will do

in an engineering-based profession.

We could give our measure to experienced engineers and

see if there is a high correlation between scores on the

measure and their salaries as engineers.

A high correlation would provide evidence for predictive

validity -- it would show that our measure can correctly

predict something that we theoretically thing it should beable to predict.


5/16

A TEST MUST BE VALID-

Predictive ValidityWhen evaluating test to real-life predictions, even very

modest correlations ofr= .02 or .03 can be of considerable

importance. For example, the impact of chemotherapy on

breast cancer survival is r= .03.

In selection, hiring, and counseling contexts, currentinterpretations suggest that correlations as low as r= .02 or

.03 are meaningful, with many psychological (and medical

test) assessments and real life criteria falling in the r = .10 to

.30 level, and a few rising beyond that level.

-


6/16

Y

Giving high school juniors the ACT test for

admission to a university.

The test is the predictor and first semester grades

in college are the criterion. If the correlation is

large, this means the ACT is useful for predicting

future grades.


7/16

The extent to which scores on the scale are related to, and

predictive of, some future outcome that is of practicalutility.

e.g., If higher scores on the SAT are positively correlated

with

higher G.P.A.s and visa versa, then the SAT is said to

have predictive validity.

The Predictive Validity of the SAT is mildly supported by

the relation of that scale with performance in graduate

school.


8/16


9/16

A certain percentage of individuals are

conditioned, as children, to behave in ways that

are contrary to their natural and naturally

preferred behaviors and are, as a result, oftenunaware of their natural tendencies and unable to

utilize them effectively as adults. In such cases,

individuals are unable to recognize or report

ownership of inborn traits. These individualsgenerally recognize, identify with and report their

conditioned traits, even though these traits may

be ineffective and counterproductive to the

individual's functioning.


10/16

Prediction:

Such individuals can easily misrepresentthemselves on single dimensional profiles and this

misrepresentation cannot be detected or

determined by such an instrument.

The result is that single dimensional profiles

describe the profiler's erroneous self-perception

thereby deepening the conviction and the

discomfort attached to it, rather than identifying itas erroneous and helping the individual move

away from ineffective or harmful conditioning.


11/16

Result: In 90% (84% of group one and 96% of

group two) of subjects who were not self-aware

enough to test congruently, further examination of

the incongruence resulted in the subject beingable to discover and define the source (or sources)

of the conflict, thereby gaining the awareness

necessary to correct the incongruence to their

satisfaction. We cannot say whether the

corrections were actually made in every case, only

that subjects reported an awareness of what was

needed to make such changes.


12/16

When circumstances create high stress situations, individuals may choose

to draw upon functions that are not commonly used, in an effort to

handle the situation or reduce the stress. During these times, the

individual may report only the functions currently in use, even thoughthese are not the functions that are used naturally in ordinary or low

stress situations.

When circumstances create high stresssituations, individuals may choose to draw

upon functions that are not commonly

used, in an effort to handle the situation or

reduce the stress. During these times, the

individual may report only the functions

currently in use, even though these are not

the functions that are used naturally inordinary or low stress situations.


13/16

Prediction:

Should a single dimensional profile, which measures

preferences and reports an overall "personality" based on

the chosen preferences, be taken during such high stressperiods.

The result will be erroneous and can add to the confusion

of the subject rather than clarify what is happening as a

result of the stressful situation. The same subject could take the preferences profile after

the situation has passed and get a completely different

reading on his or her "personality".

The multidimensional approach allows individuals to see

where stressors have altered their functioning and

enables them to consciously work through the situation,

and to more purposefully use the preferences that are

aiding them now in similar future situations.


14/16

Result: In 90% (84% of group one and 96% of

group two) of subjects who were not self-aware

enough to test congruently, further examination

of the incongruence resulted in the subject being

able to discover and define the source (orsources) of the conflict, thereby gaining the

awareness necessary to correct the incongruence

to their satisfaction. We cannot say whether the

corrections were actually made in every case,only that subjects reported an awareness of

what was needed to make such changes.


15/16


16/16

Predictive validity is regarded as a very strong

measure of statistical validity, but it does contain

a few weaknesses that statisticians and

researchers need to take into consideration.

Predictive validity does not test all of the

available data, and individuals who are not

selected cannot, by definition, go on to produce ascore on that particular criterion.

Documents

Predictive Validity