Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37352453›Full record

ReviewMilitary psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association

Identification and evaluation of criterion measurement methods.

Matthew Allen, Teresa Russell, Laura Ford, Thomas Carretta, Angela Lee, Cristina Kirkendall

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Commentary on the criterion problem in the US Department of Defense: Policy and operational considerations.Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association
    Article
  2. Introduction to the special issue on criterion measurement.Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association
    Article
  3. Comments on the articles dealing with individual performance criteria that are included in this special issue ofMilitary psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association
    Article
  4. Administrative records-based criterion measures.Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew AllenHuman Resources Research Organization, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
Teresa RussellIndependent, Roseville, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8850-4489
Laura FordHuman Resources Research Organization, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
Thomas CarrettaAir Force Research Laboratory, U.S. Air Force, USA.
Angela LeeHuman Resources Research Organization, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
Cristina KirkendallU.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, USA.
Human Resources Research Organization · USMinneapolis Business College · USUnited States Air Force Research Laboratory · USUnited States Army · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Criterion measures vary greatly in terms of their psychometric quality and ease of use. This paper serves two purposes. First, it provides a general summary of different approaches to criterion measurement in a military context. Second, it provides an extensive review of 16 specific types of criterion measurement methods (e.g., job performance rating scales, self-report questionnaires, job knowledge tests) on nine psychometric and ease-of-use evaluation factors. Eight criterion measurement experts read a summary of extant research and made ratings to evaluate each measurement method on the evaluation factors. Rater intra-class correlations (ICCs) were high, ranging from .75 to .95 across the evaluation dimensions with a median of .91. Data showed a quality-feasibility tradeoff, where criterion data that are easy to obtain often have technical flaws. Recommendations for military services and future directions in criterion measurement (e.g., applications of machine learning) are discussed.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesHumansPsychometricsSelf Reportadministrative recordscriterion measurementjob knowledge testsJob performancemeasurement methodsperformance ratingsself-reportsimulationswork sample tests

Identifiers

PMID37352453
PMCPMC10291913
OpenAlexW4293070058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.