Does concurrent validity really estimate predictive validity in psychological testing? Two local studies

Abstract Concurrent validity designs are used widely in applied psychology as proxy estimates of predictive validity in operational settings, although few primary (local) studies have investigated the generalizability of concurrent validity coefficients empirically. The present study compared the same assessment tool and performance criterion between incumbent and applicant consumer samples from two large financial institutions ( N = 2942 and N = 2880), without the common issue of range restriction in the applicant groups. The results found no significant differences in the observed validity coefficients between the groups, despite evidence of impression management in the applicant samples. In addition, range restriction corrections in the concurrent samples would have likely overestimated the predictive validities. Practical implications are briefly discussed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Psychology
Published
2025-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.70001
Primary Topic
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Does concurrent validity really estimate predictive validity in psychological testing? Two local studies

Saul Fine
5 links
Applied Psychology
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
article

Does concurrent validity really estimate predictive validity in psychological testing? Two local studies

Saul Fine
article en

Abstract

Abstract Concurrent validity designs are used widely in applied psychology as proxy estimates of predictive validity in operational settings, although few primary (local) studies have investigated the generalizability of concurrent validity coefficients empirically. The present study compared the same assessment tool and performance criterion between incumbent and applicant consumer samples from two large financial institutions ( N = 2942 and N = 2880), without the common issue of range restriction in the applicant groups. The results found no significant differences in the observed validity coefficients between the groups, despite evidence of impression management in the applicant samples. In addition, range restriction corrections in the concurrent samples would have likely overestimated the predictive validities. Practical implications are briefly discussed.

Applied PsychologyVol. 74(1)
University of Haifa (IL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 97%
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Does concurrent validity really estimate predictive validity in psychological testing? Two local studies — Saul Fine · Applied Psychology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS