i The closer to one, the higher the internal consistency reliability. Internal consistency scores are measured between 0 and 1 (this time with a coefficient called Cronbach’s alpha). Asking a question in a few different ways helps us to ensure that we are getting an accurate measurement of the concept. Test takers will notice that many questions appear to measure the same thing. Internal consistency relates to the questions that are used in each assessment. For Hogan, the short-term test-retest reliability is. Test-retest reliability uses a correlation of scores (again, using the Pearson coefficient) from a first assessment and a second assessment sometime later. In other words, are people responding to questions the same way each time they take the test? Inconsistent responses can indicate that assessments results are not actually measuring personality, which should be relatively stable over time. Test-retest reliability is a measure of consistency of responses over time. The reliability of an assessment can be evaluated in two broad ways: 1) internal consistency and 2) test-retest reliability. Reliability, on the other hand, refers to the consistency of the test. If they don’t, it’s worth considering why not. Any assessment provider worth their salt should be able to provide you with evidence of validity. There are many ways of measuring validity, some more useful than others. For another, more closely-related example, the correlation between structured job interviews and job performance is. While this may not seem very high, a good comparison is to look at the validity for something completely unrelated.įor example, the predictive validity of ibuprofen for pain reduction is only. However, when the HPI is combined with the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) and Motives, Values, and Preferences Inventory (MVPI), that number jumps to. 29 for predicting performance across job families. The predictive validity of the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) is. The closer to one, the higher the predictive power of the test. Validity is typically measured with a coefficient between -1 and 1 (called the Pearson correlation coefficient). In the case of personality assessments, a good tool will be able to predict how well someone will perform their job. Predictive validity tells us how accurate a tool is at predicting a certain outcome. In essence, does it measure what it is supposed to measure? While there are several types of validity to pay attention to, the most important for our purposes is predictive validity. Validity refers to the accuracy of the assessment. Valid but not reliable means that the average scores align with the goals of the test, but individual scores are inconsistent.īoth reliable and valid means that the test will consistently measure what it is supposed to over a period of time – it’s consistently hitting the bullseye. Reliable but not valid means that you are consistently testing the same thing over and over again, but it’s not testing what you want to test. Validity and reliability can tell you two general things: 1) that the assessment is measuring what you want it to, and 2) that it will reliably assess the same thing each time - ensuring that the results you get aren’t a one-off.Īn easy way to think about this concept is with a bullseye metaphor: The very center of the bullseye is exactly what you want to assess. Any good tool should have concrete data demonstrating its validity and reliability. When deciding on the right assessment for your valuable talent, pay attention to the scientific rigor with which the instruments have been tested. Why bother using assessments that don’t predict performance, or that fail to resonate with your business leaders? Choosing the right assessment for selecting or developing employees can make or break the success of a talent initiative.