Some Misconceptions about Content-Oriented Validation: A Rejoinder to Norton

Abstract

Norton's arguments based on Schmidt's work are irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is that content validity evidence is not always applicable to assessment center procedures. Schmidt's validity generalization approach is based on criterion-related validity. Moreover, with respect to the value of a more sophisticated job analysis, Schmidt addresses the grouping of jobs, not designing selection devices. We reiterate our essential contention that users of assessment centers must be alert to the complexities of the content validation process.