Note on the Kaufman and Johnson studies of the differential validities of peer nomination techniques

Abstract

Discusses several methodological issues raised by G. G. Kaufman and J. C. Johnson's (see record 1974-32322-001 ) studies of the differential validity of several scaling techniques for peer nominations. It is pointed out that (a) the consequences of the distributional properties of nominations were ignored, (b) the nature of some scaling techniques chosen for comparison was unclear, and (c) the criteria were shown to be of at least 2 types which were differentially predicted by scaling techniques. The question of comparative validity of the scaling methods remains unanswered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)