EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGY
cal section which includes a small fraction of the total number
 of cases is less reliable than one which includes 50%
of the cases.
The use of any one of these factors in weighting critical
sections implies that the other factors are constant. It is
very improbable that this will be the case. If the investigator
 weights critical sections in accordance with but one
factor, he is likely to find himself ignoring other equally important
 factors. Perhaps the best policy for the investigator
to pursue is to use his judgment in weighting the various
critical sections, keeping in mind their relative value in
terms of validity and reliability.
When a scoring method for a questionnaire has been
devised by methods previously outlined, critical sections
may be determined and weighted for combination with other
questionnaires or tests.
TOTAL SCORES BASED ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
CORRELATION
Some methods of combining scores make no attempt to
determine the precise relative significance of the scores to
be combined. In the first five methods here described, no
attention is paid to differences in closeness of correlation,
but the assumption is made that no test receives consideration
 unless it has shown a significant correlation with the
criterion. The last four methods of obtaining the total
score, on the other hand, take into consideration the relative
 validity of the tests.
The simplest expedient is that of adding raw scores made
in the various tests. This method may err in giving some
tests undue weight over others. If the range of scores in
one test is from 1 to 5, and in another from 50 to 100, addition
 of raw scores gives the second test many times the
weight of the first. This may or may not be justifiable, depending
 on conditions. Certainly raw scores should never
be added without first scrutinizing the relative range of

200