Discussion: Staffing Organizations Assignment Questions

Discussion: Staffing Organizations Assignment Questions ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Discussion: Staffing Organizations Assignment Questions Complete: The minimum word count for all complete sections combined is 1500 words per unit. The general expectation is 2000 words or more per unit. Complete section should be supported by at least three peer-reviewed references while 6-8 references is the general expectation. The text may also be used in responses but does not count toward the minimum. The seventh edition of the APA Guide is now force. Discussion: Staffing Organizations Assignment Questions Cited sources that I have attached from my school library: References Gadzella, B. M., Hogan, L., Masten, W., Stacks, J., Stephens, R., & Zascavage, V. (2006). Reliability and Validity of the Watson-Glasere Critical Thinking Appraisal-Forms for Different Academic Groups. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(2), 141–143. Lievens, F., Dilchert, S., & Ones, D. (2009). The Importance of Exercise and Dimension Factors in Assessment Centers: Simultaneous Examinations of Construct-Related and Criterion-Related Validity. Human Performance, 22(5), 375–390. https://doi-org.bethelu.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/08959280903248310 Mandrekar, S., & Sargent, D. (2009). Clinical Trial Designs for Predictive Biomarker Validation: One Size Does Not Fit All. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics , 19 (3), 530–542. https://doi-org.bethelu.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/10543400902802458 Heneman, H. G., Judge, T., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2014). Staffing organizations (8th Ed.). Middleton, WI: McGraw-Hill. Complete Assignment Questions: Describe the four major forms of reliability, and evaluate how an informal interview over dinner, a formal presentation to managers, and managerial evaluations of performance potential compare for these types of reliability. What are the differences among face validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity? Which are most important when it comes to legal defensibility, applicant reactions, predicting performance in a specific job, and predicting future potential? What are the advantages to predictive validation design? Despite these advantages, why do many companies prefer to use a concurrent design? reliability_and_validity_of_the_watson_glasere_critical_thinking_appraisal_forms_for_different_academic_groups.pdf staffing_organizations_model_unit_4.pdf the_importance_of_exercise_and_dimension_factors_in_assessment_centers_simultaneous_examinations_of_construct_related_and_criterion_related_validity.pdf clinical_trial_designs_for_p Reliability and Validity of the Watson-Glasere Critical Thinking Appraisal-Forms for Different Academic Groups* Bemadette M. Gadzella, Lois Hogan, William Masten, James Stacks, Rebecca Stephens, and Victoria Zascavage This study investigated the reliability and validity of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal-Form S for subjects in academic fields. The participants were 586 university students. The responses to the WGCTA-FS were analyzed for the total group and the subgroups within the total group: psychology majors, students enrolled in educational psychology and in special education, undergraduates, and graduate students. Data showed that the WGCTA-FS was a reliable and valid instrument measuring critical thinking for these groups of subjects. Over the years, researchers, psychologists and educators have emphasized the importance of teaching and testing critical thinking skills (Ennis, 1987; College Board, 1983; and Task Force on Education and Economic Growth of the Education Commission, 1983). Siegel (1980) noted that educational philosophers viewed critical thinking to be the central idea in educational endeavors. Halpren (1988) stated that many educators viewed the promotion of critical thinking as one of the highest priorities in college education. Lawson (1999) felt that critical thinking should be part of the psychology students’ overall assessment. Is there a valid and reliable instrument that can measure critical thinking in academic settings? had responded to these inventories did not complete them. In 1994, Watson and Glaser revised the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Form A to a new version called Form S (WGCTA-FS). The WGCTA-FS has 40 items, thus, it is a much shorter inventory than the original WGCTA-Form A. Anumber of researchers, reported in the WGCTA-FS manual (Watson & Glaser, 1994b), have used this WGCTA-Form S with subjects who were primarily career applicants and business personnel. The purpose of the present study was to determine if the WGCTA-FS is a reliable and valid instrument measuring critical thinking for subjects in the academic fields. Discussion: Staffing Organizations Assignment Questions Method Subjects: The participants were 586 students enrolled in courses at a southwestern state university, of which 56 were majoring in psychology, 228 enrolled in educational psychology, 155 enrolled in special education, 79 enrolled in graduate studies, and 68 did not as yet declare a major. The total number BemadetteM. Gadzella, LoisHogan, William of undergraduates was 486. Masten, James Stacks, Rebecca Stephens, and Instrument: The data used in this study Victoria Zascavage, Department of Psychology were the students’ responses to the WGCTAand Special Education; Texas A&M UniversityFS and their end of semester course grades. Commerce, Commerce, Texas. Correspondence concerning this article The WGCTA-FS has five scenarios to which should be addressed to Dr. Bemadete Gadzella, subjects respond to questions about the Department of Psychology and Special Iiducation, contents in these scenarios. Five subscale Texas A&M University – Commerce, Commerce, scores are derived from these responses. The subscales are entitled as follows: (a) TX 75429. The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Forms A and B (Watson & Glaser, 1980) were inventories frequently used in measuring critical thinking at the post-secondary level. Both of these instruments were too long. Most participants who 141 142/Journai of instructional Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 2 Inference: in which the subject determines to what extent one can discriminate the truth or falsity of the statement from the data provided; (h) Recognition of Assumptions: in which the subject recognizes whether the assumptions are clearly stated; (c) Deduction: in which the subject decides whether certain conclusions necessarily follow the information provided; (d) Interpretation: in which the subject considers the evidence provided and determines whether generalizations on the data are warranted; and (e) Evaluation of Arguments: in which the subject distinguishes between the strong and relevant arguments from those that are weak and irrelevant in particular issues (Watson & Glaser, 1994b). The Total Critical Thinking Appraisal score is a summation of the five subscale scores. It provides a more accurate estimate (than do each of the subscale scores) of individuals’ overall proficiency with respect to attitudes, knowledge, and skills. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability for the WGCTA-FS, reported in the WGCTA-FS manual (Watson & Glaser, 1994b), were both .81. The criterion-related validities (for studies reported in the manual) varied a great deal. However, Watson and Glaser made reference to Cronbach (1970), in that, criterion-related validity of. 30 or better as having a ‘definite practical value.’ Procedure: Subjects signed a research consent form agreeing that data would be used only in research studies. During class periods, they read the scenarios in the WGCTA-FS and reported their responses on scantron sheets. These scores and the end-of-semester course grades (in percentiles) were entered into the computer by the students’ assigned numbers. Table 1 Internal Consistencies on the Total WGCTA-FS Scores for all Groups Group Total Group Psychology Majors Educational Psychology Special Education Undergraduate Graduate Number of Subjects Alpha 565 56 228 155 486 79 .92 .75 .74 .76 .92 .78 Table 2 Correlations Between Course Grades and Total WGCTA-FS Scores for All Groups Group Total Group Psychology Majors Educational Psychology Special Education Undergraduate Graduate *p<.05 **p<.Ol Number of Subjects 565 56 228 155 486 79 Course Grade .30* .62** .38** .24** .20** .36** Watson-Glasere .. / Discussion: Staffing Organizations Assignment Questions 143 Results The internal consistencies (Cronbach alphas) for the total WGCTA-FS scores and the Pearson product-moment correlations between the WGCTA-FS scores and courses grades for the total group and each of the subgroups were analyzed. The data for the total group and the subgroups showed that the internal consistencies ranged from .74 to .92 (see Table 1). The correlations between the total WGCTA-FS scores and course grades for the total group and the subgroups ranged from .20 to .62 (seeTable 2). It should be noted that there were a number of low course grades reported especially for students who had not declared a major. This accounts for the low correlation (.20) between the WGCTA-FS scores and course grades for the undergraduate group and for the. 30 correlation between WGCTA-FS scores and course grade for the total group. Discussion In was concluded that, for these groups of participants in the academic fields, the WGCTA-FS was a reliable and valid instrument measuring critical thinking. The data showed that the WGCTA-FS alphas and the correlations between the WGCTA-FS scores and the semester course grades were within the ranges reported in the WGCTA-FS manual (Watson & Giaser, 1994b). Ps.: This study was presented at the Annual Southwestern Psychological Association Convention held at Memphis, Tennessee in 2005. References College Board (1983). Academic Preparation for College. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking disposition and abilities. J. B. Baron and R. J. Sternberg, (Eds.). Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice. New York: Freeman, p.9-26. Halpem, D. R (1988). Assessing student outcomes for psychology majors. Teaching of Psychology, 15,181-186. Lawson, T. J. (1999). Assessing psychological critical thinking as a Ieaming outcome for psychology majors. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 207-208. McMillan, L. H. (1987). Enhancing college student critical thinking: a review of studies. Research of Higher Education, 26, 3-29. Siegel, H. (1980). Critical thinking as a educational idea. The Educational Forum, 45, l-li. Task Force on Education and Economic Growth of the Education Commission of the States (1983). Action on Excellence. Denver, Co: Education Commission of the States. Watson, G., & Giaser, E. M. (1980). WatsonGlaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp. Watson, G., & Giaser, E. M. (1994a). WatsonGlaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Form-S, San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp. Watson, G., & Giaser, E. M. (1994b). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Form-S, San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp. *This study was funded by a Texas A & M University-Commerce Organized Research Grant No. 144023-20300. * Acknowledgements are made to Mei Jiang, and Christopher Nichols in assisting to compile the data for this study. The Staffing Organizations Model C Organization MissionA Goals and Objectives L V E R T , Organization Strategy HR and Staffing Strategy Staffing Policies and Programs T Core Staffing Activities E Legal compliance Recruitment: external, internal R Planning Selection: measurement, external, internal Job analysis and rewards Employment: decision making, final match R E Management Staffing System and Retention N C E Support Activities 1 8 5 9 T S 0077862414_ch07_p308_366.indd 308 12/9/13 11:00 AM Pa r t F ou r C A L V E R T , Staffing Activities: Selection Chapter Seven Measurement Chapter Eight External Selection I Chapter Nine External Selection II Chapter Ten Internal Selection T E R R E N C E 1 8 5 9 T S 0077862414_ch07_p308_366.indd 309 12/9/13 11:00 AM C A L V E R T , T E R R E N C E 1 8 5 9 T S 0077862414_ch07_p308_366.indd 310 12/9/13 11:00 AM Chapter Seven C A L V Learning Objectives and Introduction Learning Objectives E Introduction R Importance and Use of Measures T Key Concepts , Measurement Measurement Scores Correlation Between Scores T Quality of Measures E Reliability of Measures R Validity of Measures R Validation of Measures in Staffing Validity Generalization E Staffing Metrics and Benchmarks N Collection of Assessment Data C Testing Procedures Acquisition of Tests and Test E Manuals Professional Standards Legal Issues 1 Determining Adverse Impact 8 Standardization Best Practices 5 Summary Discussion Questions 0077862414_ch07_p308_366.indd 311 9 T S 12/9/13 11:00 AM Ethical Issues Applications Endnotes. Discussion: Staffing Organizations Assignment Questions C A L V E R T , T E R R E N C E 1 8 5 9 T S 0077862414_ch07_p308_366.indd 312 12/9/13 11:00 AM Chapter Seven Measurement 313 Learning Objectives and Introduction Learning Objectives • Define measurement and understand its use and importance in staffing decisions C • Understand the concept of reliability and review the different ways reliability of measures can be assessedA • Define validity and consider the relationship between reliability and validity L • Compare and contrast the two types of validation studies typically conducted V • Consider how validity generalization affects and informs validation of measures in staffing E • Review the primary ways assessment data can be collected Introduction R T , In staffing, measurement is a process used to gather and express information about people and jobs in numerical form. Measurement is critical to staffing because, as T far as selection decisions are concerned, a selection decision can only be as effective as the measures on which it E is based. The first part of this chapter presents the process of measurement in staffing R importance and uses of measurement in staffdecisions. After showing the vital ing activities, three key conceptsR are discussed. The first concept is that of measurement itself, along with the issues raised by it—standardization of measurement, E levels of measurement, and the difference between objective and subjective meaN of scoring and how to express scores in ways sures. The second concept is that that help in their interpretation. C The final concept is that of correlations between scores, particularly as expressed by the correlation coefficient and its significance. Escores is a very useful way to learn even more Calculating correlations between about the meaning of scores. What is the quality of the measures used in staffing? How sound are they as indi1 cators of the attributes being measured? Answers to these questions lie in the reliability and validity of the measures 8 and the scores they yield. There are multiple ways of doing reliability and validity analysis; these methods are discussed in conjunction 5 with numerous examples drawn from staffing situations. As these examples show, 9 who to hire or reject) depends heavily on the the quality of staffing decisions (e.g., quality of measures and scores used T as inputs to these decisions. Some organizations rely only on common staffing metrics and benchmarks—what leading organizations S are doing—to measure effectiveness. Though benchmarks have their value, reliability and validity are the real keys in assessing the quality of selection measures. An important practical concern involved in the process of measurement is the collection of assessment data. Decisions about testing procedures (who is qualified 0077862414_ch07_p308_366.indd 313 12/9/13 11:00 AM 314 Part Four Staffing Activities: Selection to test applicants, what information should be disclosed to applicants, and how to assess applicants with standardized procedures) need to be made. The collection of assessment data also includes the acquisition of tests and test manuals. This process will vary depending on whether ­paper-­and-pencil or computerized selection measures are used. Finally, in the collection of assessment data, organizations need to attend to professional standards that govern their proper use. C Measurement concepts and procedures are directly involved in legal issues, parA and affirmative action (EEO/AA) issues. ticularly equal employment opportunity This requires collection and analysisLof applicant flow and stock statistics. Also reviewed are methods for determining adverse impact, standardization of meaV by the Equal Employment Opportunity sures, and best practices as suggested Commission (EEOC). E R Importance and Use of MeasuresT , Measurement is one of the key ingredients for, and tools of, staffing organizations. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to have any type of systematic staffing process that does not use measures and an accompanying measurement process. T Measures are methods or techniques for describing and assessing attributes of E objects that are of concern to us. Discussion: Staffing Organizations Assignment Questions Examples include tests of applicants’ KSAOs (knowledge, skill, ability, and otherRcharacteristics such as personality), evaluations of employees’ job performance, and applicants’ ratings of their preferences R for various types of job rewards. These assessments of attributes are gathered E consists of (1) choosing an attribute of through the measurement process, which concern, (2) developing an operational N definition of the attribute, (3) constructing a measure of the attribute (if no suitable measure is available) as it is operationally defined, and (4) using the measure toCactually gauge the attribute. The goal of the measurement process E is to produce a number or score for a given attribute, which can then be used to differentiate individuals and make decisions about them. For example, applicants’ scores on an ability test, employees’ perfor1 mance evaluation rating scores, and applicants’ ratings of rewards in terms of their importance become indicators of the 8 attribute. Information about these attributes is then used to make decisions, for example, about who to hire, who to promote, and how to reward an employee for good5 performance. Thus, through the measurement process, the initial attribute and its 9 operational definition are transformed into a numerical expression of the attribute. T S Key Concepts This section covers a series of key concepts in three major areas: measurement, scores, and correlation between scores. 0077862414_ch07_p308_366.indd 314 12/9/13 11:00 AM Chapter Seven Measurement 315 Measurement In the preceding discussion, the essence of measurement and its importance and use in staffing were described. It is important to define the term “measurement” more formally and explore implications of that definition. C Definition Measurement may be defined as Athe process of assigning numbers to objects to represent quantities of an attribute of the objects.1 Exhibit 7.1 depicts the general L process of the use of measures in staffing, along with an example for the job of information technology analyst.VThe first step in measurement is to choose and define an attribute (also called aE construct) to be measured. In the example, this is knowledge of programming languages. Then, a measure must be developed for the R measured. In the example, a ­paper-­and-pencil attribute so that it can be physically test is developed to measure programming knowledge, and this test is administered T , Exhibit 7.1?Use of Measures in Staffing T E R R E N C E 1 8 5 9 T S 0077862414_ch07_p308_366.indd 315 12/9/13 11:00 AM 316 Part Four Staffing Activities: Selection to applicants. Once the attribute is physically measured, numbers or scores are determined (in the example, the programming knowledge test is scored).Discussion: Staffing Organizations Assignment Questions At that point, the applicants’ scores are evaluated (which scores meet the job requirements), and a selection decision can be made (e.g., hire an information technology analyst). Of course, in practice, this textbook process is often not followed explicitly, and thus selection errors are more likely. For example, if the methods used to determine C scores on an attribute are not explicitly determined and evaluated, the scores themselves may be incorrect. Similarly, ifA the evaluation of the scores is not systematic, each selection decision maker may put L his or her own spin on the scores, thereby defeating the purpose of careful measurement. The best way to avoid these probV decisions to go through each step of the lems is for all those involved in selection measurement process depicted in Exhibit E 7.1, apply it to the job(s) in question, and reach agreement at each step of the way. R T Standardization The hallmark of sound measurement, practice is standardization.2 Standardization is a means of controlling the influence of outside or extraneous factors on the scores generated by the measure and ensuring that, as much as possible, the scores T obtained reflect the attribute measured. A standardized measure has threeE basic properties: measured (e.g., all job applicants take 1. The content is identical for all objects R the same test). R 2. The administration of the measure is identical for all objects (e.g., all job E on a test). applicants have the same time limit 3. The rules for assigning numbersN are clearly specified and agreed on in advance (e.g., a scoring key for the test C is developed before it is administered). These seemingly simple and straightforward characteristics of standardization of E measures have substantial implications for the conduct of many staffing activities. These implications will become apparent throughout the remainder of this text. For example, assessment devices, such as1the employment interview and letters of reference, often fail to meet the requirements for standardization, and organizations 8 must undertake steps to make them more standardized. 5 Levels of Measurement 9 There are varying degrees of precision T in measuring attributes and in representing differences among objects in terms of attributes. Accordingly, there are different levels or scales of measurement.3 It isScommon to classify any particular measure as falling into one of four levels of measurement: nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio. Nominal. With nominal scales, a given attribute is categorized, and numbers are assigned to the categories. With or without numbers, however, there is no order or 0077862414_ch07_p308_366.indd 316 12/9/13 11:00 AM Chapter Seven Measurement 317 level implied among the categories. The categori … Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

Read more
Enjoy affordable prices and lifetime discounts
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Order Now Order in Chat

Start off on the right foot this semester. Get expert-written solutions at a 20% discount