The Experts below are selected from a list of 24579 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Eveline Wandlvogt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Serge Ter Braake - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Antske Fokkens - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Frank Erwin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • generalizable Biographical Data validity can be achieved without multi organizational development and keying
    Personnel Psychology, 1999
    Co-Authors: Kevin D Carlson, Hannah R. Rothstein, Frank L. Schmidt, Steven E Scullen, Frank Erwin
    Abstract:

    This research showed that the validity of a bioData instrument developed and keyed within a single organization can generalize to other organizations. It also examines a criterion measure-rate of promotional progress-that has not been used extensively in bioData research, but has several characteristics that make its use attractive. The validity of the bioData component of the Manager Profile Record (MPR), developed and keyed within a single organization, as a predictor of rate of managerial progress was cross-validated on a sample of 7,334 managers and staff professionals in 24 organizations. Results indicate the MPR was a valid predictor of rate of promotional progress across all organizations and that validity did not vary greatly across organizations (p= .53, SDp= .05). The MPR was also a valid predictor for both sexes, as well as for managers of all age groups, lengths of company service, and education levels. These findings demonstrate that multiple-firm development and keying of a bioData instrument was not required for generalizable validity, and argue against the hypothesis of situational specificity. Suggestions for developing bioData instruments in single organizations that will generalize to other organizations include careful attention to the validity and reliability of criterion measures and developing validity at the item level.

  • generalizable Biographical Data validity can be achieved without and keying multi organizational development
    1999
    Co-Authors: Kevin D Carlson, Hannah R. Rothstein, Frank L. Schmidt, Steven E Scullen, Frank Erwin
    Abstract:

    This research showed that the validity of a bioData instrument developed and keyed within a single organization can generalize to other organizations. It also examines a criterion measure-rate of promotional progress-that has not been used extensively in bioData research, but has several characteristics that make its use attractive. The validity of the bioData component of the Manager Profile Record (MPR), developed and keyed within a single organization, as a predictor of rate of managerial progress was cross-validated on a sample of 7,334 managers and staff professionals in 24 organizations. Results indicate the MPR was a valid predictor of rate of promotional progress across all organizations and that validity did not vary greatly across organizations (p = .53, SO, = .05). The MPR was also a valid predictor for both sexes, as well as for managers of all age groups, lengths of company service, and education levels. These findings demonstrate that multiple-firm development and keying of a bioData instrument was not required for generalizable validity, and argue against the hypothesis of situational specificity. Suggestions for developing bioData instruments in single organizations that will generalize to other organizations include careful attention to the validity and reliability of criterion measures and developing validity at the item level.

H Bardeleben - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • reliability of Biographical Data their relations to personality variables and their influence on life events
    Journal of Affective Disorders, 1999
    Co-Authors: K E Buhler, H Haltenhof, Siegfried Geyer, H Bardeleben
    Abstract:

    Background: First, this study aims to investigate the reliability of Biographical and personality Data, i.e. analysing the impact of depressive mood on these variables. Second, the influence of early life experience and personality on the reporting of life events was examined. Methods: Self-reporting questionnaires were administered for a sample of 250 depressive subjects at the beginning, and to assess the influence of depressive mood on the reporting of biographic Data at the end of inpatient treatment we used a random sample of 50 subjects out of the 250 patients. Results: Biographical Data, unlike personality Data, are not significantly influenced by depressive mood and depressive cognition. The number of life-events, and their mean subjective stress, neuroticisms and aim-relatedness are on a direct path strongly influenced by Biographical Data. That means that the more negatively primary socialisation was reported, the more life-events were communicated, with corresponding increases in the reporting of their subjective stress, and more neuroticism and less aim-relatedness, and vice versa. Neuroticism strongly influences in a positive way, and aim-relatedness negatively influences in a medium way, the number of life-events and their subjective stress. That means the higher neuroticism and the lower aim-relatedness were reported, the more life-events and higher stress were communicated, and vice versa. Conclusion: Linear causal processes from mood-independent factors (e.g. Biographical factors, vulnerability) may be the beginning of cyclic causal processes, i.e. vicious circles between life-events and mood-dependent factors (e.g. personality variables). Limitations: According to the design of the investigation there is no differentiation possible between personality and depression. Clinical relevance: To avoid vicious circles between life-events and mood-dependent factors, preventive psychotherapeutic intervention seems to be necessary to avoid the genesis of harmful life-events.