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? Ready to discover your one-stop shop for your district’s educational needs? Let’s talk.Choosing the right assessment for selecting or developing employees can make or break the success of a talent initiative. Illuminate supports over 17 million students and 5200 districts/schools. Our solution brings together holistic data and collaborative tools and puts them in the hands of educators. Illuminate Education partners with K-12 educators to equip them with data to serve the whole child and reach new levels of student performance. So, in order to do that, we correlate performance on any given assessment or benchmark, any Inspect assessment with state test performance, or any other valid instrument like ACT or SAT. How good of a predictor that assessment is to any other given instrument or assessment (e.g., end-of-year state assessment). On top of that, once the assessment is in production, what I do is criterion validity. So, having three people blindly aligning items or assessments to the standards is having content validity. In order to do this, we need multiple people making sure that the item aligns to certain standards or that the assessment as a whole aligns to a given number of standards. When we have item writers creating any given item, we’re trying to make sure that the items are aligned to certain standards. What we’re often trying to ascertain is content validity and criterion validity. In a nutshell, test validity is whether any given assessment measures what it’s supposed to measure. If you test a student today and test a student tomorrow, are the scores going to be similar? If you test one population of students and a different population of students, are you going to see similar scores on the same assessment? In terms of internal reliability, if you’re administering the first part of the assessment to students, and then the second part of the assessment, are the scores on the first part and second part going to be similar? These questions deal with the issue of whether students are performing on all of the items within a given assessment consistently. You can think about reliability in terms of consistency of scores.