Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dowling, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Dickinson, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 25, No. 1, 55-63 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/103841118702500107


Reviews

Validity Revisited: A Critical Review of Braun and Knoche's Study of the Predictive Validity of Psychological Appraisal Testing

Peter J. Dowling

Simon Dickinson

The aim of the present paper is to critically review a study by Braun and Knoche (1978) which claims to demonstrate the predictive validity of psychological appraisal testing. As Lansbury and Spillane (1983) have noted, "in Australia there is surprisingly little research evidence to support the claims of managers and their consultants who persist in subjecting people to personality tests" (p. 44). Given this dearth of Australian research, it is not surprising that Braun and Knoche's study is frequently cited at seminars and in the Australian literature (eg. see Saul, 1980) as an example of the utility of psychological testing in general and personality testing in particular. In other words, this study has become something of a 'classic' study among the Australian psychological testing community. As Carey (1976) has shown in his review of a number of classic studies in the area of industrial psychology, classic studies tend to be frequently cited but rarely read. Thus, over time, any flaws in these studies were overlooked as they became part of the common body of knowledge of the field — in Kuhnian terms, these studies became part of the shared paradigm of industrial psychology (Kuhn, 1970). It is therefore of some importance that academics and practitioners are familiar with the details of frequently cited papers in their field and the aim of the present paper is to examine a frequently cited paper in the field of psychological testing.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?