Between Dec 19, 2024 and Jan 2, 2025, datasets can be submitted to DRUM but will not be processed until after the break. Staff will not be available to answer email during this period, and will not be able to provide DOIs until after Jan 2. If you are in need of a DOI during this period, consider Dryad or OpenICPSR. Submission responses to the UDC may also be delayed during this time.

Browsing by Author "Hsu, Louis M."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Dependence of the relative productivity gains of two personnel selection tests on the applicant pool size
    (1983) Hsu, Louis M.
    Schmidt, Hunter, McKenzie, and Muldrow (1979) have recently demonstrated how the use of a new test, which differed from a previous test in terms of validity and/or per applicant cost, could result in impressive gains in productivity (utility). This paper focuses on the consequences of changing the applicant pool size (keeping the number of selectees fixed) on the relative productivity gains of the two tests. It is shown that the utility gain may be larger for one test than for the other for part of the range of possible applicant pool sizes and smaller for the rest of that range. Methods are described for determining for any two tests (1) whether such a reversal can occur and (2) the range of applicant pool sizes leading to greater utility gains for each test over the other. An implication is that the choice of a test should be contingent on an analysis of the relative productivity gains of the competing procedures for the available applicant pool sizes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Ordering power of separate versus grouped true-false tests: Interaction of type of test with knowledge levels of examinees
    (1979) Hsu, Louis M.
    The ordering power of an objective test was defined in terms of the probability that this test led to the correct ranking of examinees. A comparison of the relative ordering power of separate and grouped-items true-false (T-F) tests indicated that neither type of test was uniformly superior to the other across all levels of knowledge of examinees. Instead, separate-items T-F tests were found to be superior in discriminating among examinees with medium and high levels of knowledge, and grouped-items T-F tests with two and three items per cluster were found to be superior for discriminating among examinees with low levels of knowledge. These findings do not support blanket recommendations such as Ebel’s (1978) that "test constructors should avoid constructing items in multiple-choice form which are essentially collections of T-F statements" (p. 43) or that, in general, "it is better to present such statements as independent T-F items" (p. 43). Rather, they are similar to Lord’s (1977) findings concerning the relative efficiency of multiple-choice tests with different numbers of options per question for examinees of differing ability levels.