A note on validity generalization procedures.

Abstract

Abstract : Validity generalization procedures are reviewed and found to be subject to the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Alternative models may explain variation in validity coefficients as well as the cross-situational consistency model espoused by proponents of validity generalization. Moreover, many of the assumptions that form the statistical foundation for validity generalization are false. It is recommended that (a) the conditionality of inferences based on validity generalization analyses be explicitly stated, (b) the decision rule for the validity generalization ratio be changed from .75 to .90, and (c) validity generalization analyses employ Fisher z coefficients rather than (Pearson) correlation coefficients. (Author).