Employment psychology

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1028407564

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-47263

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Link, Henry Charles; Thorndike, Edward L. http://d-nb.info/gnd/118802127

Title:: Employment psychology

Place of publication:: New York

Publisher:: MacMillan

Year of publication:: 1924

Scope:: 1 Online-Ressource (XII, 440 Seiten)

Digitisation:: 2018

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part I. Psychological tests

Collection:: Economics Books

APPRENTICE TOOLMAKERS AND MACHINISTS 125 was asked to rank the men in the order of their ability to learn the prescribed work. At the same time, he was asked also to rank his men according to the opinion he had formed of them when they first came into the shop. The Method by which these ranks were obtained is probably Worth describing for the aid which it may be to other experimenters. It had been found that, usually, when a foreman is asked to rank the men or women under him, he is unable to rank them in any but the crudest form. He may call one group good, another fair, and a very few, poor. This crudity is often due to the fact that it is extremely difficult to make an accurate classification mentally. In order to overcome this difficulty, the name of every person tested Was written on a small card. The pack of cards was then handed to the foreman and he was asked to divide all the men into three equal groups, according to their ability. This was comparatively easy. Having done this, he was f“ext asked to take each group and arrange the cards in in the same way. Thus, by dividing the work and by taking the mechanics of the classification simple and helpful, an unambiguous and probably more reliable result was obtained. The tests were then also ranked ar >d compared with the ranking of the men being trained. The correlations found were: plus .81 for the form-board test, plus .75 for the cube test, plus .84 for the Stenquist tes t, and plus .90 for the three tests combined. These correlations are unusually high, but they were based not 0t i the foreman’s first impression of the men but his ma ture opinion after having been in close contact with them during several weeks of intensive training. (The foreman Ww nothing whatsoever of the performance of the men m the tests when he made his rankings.) The ranking of

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Employment psychology

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation