utility tests.jpeg

# Table 7-2: Most Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Utility Tables **Instrument:** What It Tells Us | Instrument | What it Tells Us | Example | |---|---|---| | Expectancy table or chart | Likelihood that individuals who score within a given range on the predictor will perform successfully o...

# Table 7-2: Most Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Utility Tables **Instrument:** What It Tells Us | Instrument | What it Tells Us | Example | |---|---|---| | Expectancy table or chart | Likelihood that individuals who score within a given range on the predictor will perform successfully on the criterion. | A school psychologist uses an expectancy table to determine the likelihood that students who score within a particular range on an aptitude test will succeed in regular classes as opposed to special education classes. | | Taylor-Russell tables | Increase in base rate of successful performance that is associated with a particular level of criterion-related validity. | A human resources manager of a large computer store uses the Taylor-Russell tables to help decide whether applicants for sales positions should be administered an extraversion inventory prior to hire. The manager wants to increase the portion of the sales force that is considered successful (consistently meets sales quota). | | Naylor-Shine tables | Likely average increase in criterion performance as a result of using a particular test or intervention; also provides selection ratio needed to achieve a particular increase in criterion performance. | The provost at a private college estimates the increase in applicant pool (and corresponding decrease in selection ratio) needed to improve the mean performance of students it selects by 0.50 standardized units while still maintaining its enrollment figures. | **Advantages** * Easy-to-use graphical display; can aid in decision making regarding a specific individual or a group of individuals scoring in a given range on the predictor. * Easy-to-use; shows the relationships between selection ratio, criterion-related validity, and existing base rate; facilitates decision making with regard to test use and/or recruitment to lower the selection ratio. * Provides information (or average performance gain) needed to use the Brogden-Cronbach-Gleser utility formula; does not dichotomize criterion performance; useful either for showing average performance gain or to show selection ratio needed for a particular performance gain; facilitates decision making with regard to likely increase in performance with test use and/or recruitment needed to lower the selection ratio. **Disadvantages** * Dichotomizes performance into successful and unsuccessful categories, which is not realistic in most situations; does not address monetary issues such as cost of testing. * Overestimates utility unless top-down selection is used; utility expressed in terms of performance gain based on standardized units, which can be difficult to interpret in practical terms; does not address monetary issues such as cost of testing or return on investment. * Relationship between predictor and criterion must be linear; does not indicate the likely average increase in performance with use of the test; difficulty identifying a criterion value to separate successful and unsuccessful performance; dichotomizes performance into successful versus unsuccessful, which is not realistic in most situations; does not consider the cost of testing in comparison to benefits. **Note:** The reference "Boudreau (1988)" is cited at the end of the table.