[IPAC-List] Speed vs Power Tests

[Winfred Arthur, Jr.]

'just wanted to note that concerning the "speed" and validity and 
subgroup differences issue, i think it is important that we *not* 
conflate two quite different uses of the term "speed" in this 
discussion.  specifically, speed (of processing) as a specific ability 
facet of /g/ (i.e., fluid intelligence?), is quite different from speed 
as per the time-to-complete-a-test (e.g., a declarative knowledge 
test).  for instance, i believe Mike A.'s examples from his 06/01 email 
speak to the latter.

i think this distinction is important b/c the answers to the questions 
being asked are likely to be a function of which use of the term "speed" 
one is referring to.  for instance, *working memory*, as an information 
processing construct, is more aligned w/ the first use of "speed" 
above.  in addition, in the standard information processing model, it is 
considered to be a precursor to /g/, is a stronger predictor of learning 
and training outcomes, is just as strong a predictor of performance, and 
displays lower subgroup differences (not eliminate) than /g/. (of 
course, one is not going to find a lot of WM studies in the I/O 
literature; you'd have to go to cognitive psychology for that.)  in 
contrast, consonant w/ and as reflected in the results summarized by 
Mike A. in his email, it is unclear to me theoretically and 
conceptually, why the time-to-completion conceptualization of "speed" 
would display a similar pattern of results . . . but of course, i could 
be wrong  :)

- winfred

On 6/2/2016 8:09 PM, Joel Wiesen wrote:
> Mike offered his 2011 IOP focal article to the list. I offer my 
> (unpublished) response to his article, in partial rebuttal (attached).
>
> Concerning the subject line of this thread, I think the field of I/O. 
> may be overlooking an opportunity to both increase validity and 
> decrease adverse impact.  If speed is a valid predictor for some jobs, 
> and if speed shows no intergroup differences in mean scores, we might 
> reasonably expect to increase validity and decrease adverse impact by 
> including in the selection battery a job-related measure of work 
> speed. I find this possibility to be exciting and encouraging.  Do you?
>
> Joel
>
>
> - -
> Joel P. Wiesen, Ph.D., Director
> Applied Personnel Research
> 62 Candlewood Road
> Scarsdale, NY 10583-6040
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/joelwiesen
> (617) 244-8859
> http://appliedpersonnelresearch.com
>
>
>
>
> Note: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or 
> legally privileged information. Please do not forward any contents 
> without permission. If you have received this message in error please 
> destroy all copies, completely remove it from your computer, and 
> notify the sender. Thank you.
>
>
> On 6/2/16 5:22 PM, Michael McDaniel (WSF) wrote:
>> res reading for some or many tasks and the applicant reads slower than
>> most, the applicant, if hired, will likely complete their job
>> assignments more slowly and thus their job performance will suffer, on
>> average. In such a scenario, speed is not an undesirable characteristic
>> of the test if one is interested in hiring the applicants with the
>> highest probability of being a well-performing employee.
>>
>> On the other hand, if job-related reading speed has undesirable
>> consequences such as group differences, one may wish to sacrifice merit
>> hiring for diversity hiring and increase the time limit of the exam.
>> This will improve the diversity of hires, on average, and will cause an
>> increase in group job performance differences on average.  As long as
>> there are group differences in job-related abilities, we will face t
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> IPAC-List
> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist9.pair.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20160603/f1b832c2/attachment.html>