EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGY 
out regard to differences in scores within the sections. The 
same unit value must be given to all scores falling within 
a critical section. The weights must refer to the sections 
and not to the raw scores. 
Critical sections may be weighted in accordance with (1) 
significance of the group differences, (2) predictive value, 
(3) reliability, or (4) a combination of these indicators of 
value. 
If critical sections for the tests have been found, all of 
which have high significance, there is no point in giving 
them different weights. The individual is allowed =1 for 
each critical section in which his scores fall. If, for example, 
a critical section has been found in which there are many 
more successes than failures, an applicant who scores in 
that section is given -} 1 for that performance. Again, if a 
critical section has been found in that same test or another 
test in which the failures are represented in much greater 
proportion than the successes, then any applicant who scores 
within that section is given —1. If he does not score within 
a critical section in a test, he receives zero for that test. 
An individual’s score is the algebraic sum of the points so 
determined. 
If the critical sections vary considerably in their signifi- 
cance, they may be weighted in accordance with their rela- 
tive significance. If the percentages of the different groups 
who score in a critical section have been determined (per- 
centage of all successes and percentage of all failures), and 
the difference in these percentages divided by the error of 
the difference, a weight may be assigned to the section in 
proportion to this quotient. The weight, in other words, 
should be proportional to the statistical significance of the 
differences between the percentages of the two groups scor- 
ing within the several critical sections. This method re- 
quires then the following figures: 
1. Proportion of all successes who score within tbe critical 
section: 
204