A note on validity generalization procedures

Abstract

Reviews validity generalization (VG) procedures and finds them to be subject to the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent." It is argued that alternative models may explain variation in validity coefficients as well as the cross-situational consistency model espoused by many users of the VG approach. Moreover, some of the assumptions that form the statistical foundation of VG work are open to question. It is suggested that Fisher z transformations, which remove most of these problems and usually produce more conservative estimates of the degree to which sampling error may account for variability in correlations, be used. It is also recommended that a more stringent criterion than the 75% decision rule for rejecting the situational specificity hypothesis be used. (64 ref) (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)