Validity and norm group
Norms are test results from a group of test takers selected as a reference group in evaluating and interpreting test results.
JobMatch Talent’s norms are based on 12,702 test results from a norm group, of which 60% were men and 40% were women. The average age was 41.
Gender difference and age difference
We have examined how much test results vary with gender and age. Some differences have been observed, but we consider them to be so small that they do not need to be taken into account when interpreting test results.
Reliability is a measure of how stable a test result is over time (when the same individual is tested on multiple occasions).
Does a test result show a snapshot or something more permanent? We have completed three studies where we calculated the reliability from a few months up to several years.
The average correlation in the studies shows a correlation coefficient of 0.7–0.9, which is very high. This means that a JobMatch Talent result is long-term and reliable.
Validity is a test’s ability to measure the concept it is intended to measure.
The validity of the JobMatch Talent test has been examined regarding four types of validity: content validity, construct validity, criterion validity and ecological validity.
All of the four different validity studies clearly show a good validity.
Bertil Mårdberg, PhD, Professor emeritus, has performed an analysis of JobMatch Talent’s predictive validity. He reports three values here as validity coefficients of r: 0.54, 0.70, 0.66. The mean value of the predictive validity is therefore 0.63.
For more detailed information please see the section with scientific reports.
Predictive validity/criterion validity
Predictive validity is perhaps the most important form of validity, as it will show how well the test can predict work performance and work-related behaviour.
If a test has good predictive validity, it means that the test can be used, for example, as part of the recruitment process, as a test with good predictive validity is able to provide indications of how a person will perform before the person is employed.
In order to measure and document predictive validity, Bengt Jansson (Doctor of Philosophy linked to the University of Gothenburg, specialising in psychometrics and statistics) conducted a scientific study of JobMatch Talent’s predictive validity (see scientific report, Jansson, 2013).
The study was a Supervisor Rating study, where managers assessed their employee’s working methods and achievements in 11 different areas, without knowing their JobMatch Talent result.
We received 280 responses that were associated with JobMatch Talent results from the test takers to see if there was a logical relationship between what JobMatch Talent results showed and how the managers had assessed the employees.
The result shows that there is clear and logical correlation between the manager’s assessments and the JobMatch results.
JobMatch Talent’s Work structure and Decision-making character scales proved to be good predictors for structure and quality of work. The Tolerance and Relationship orientation scales turned out to be good predictors for collaborative skills – assisted by the Communication and Stress Patterns scales.
The scales for Inner drive, Activity, Ambition, Action and Communication proved to be good predictors for productive action. This shows that JobMatch Talent is able to predict an employee’s performance in a certain position.