Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Using a latent variable approach, the authors examined whether retesting on a cognitive ability measure resulted in measurement and predictive bias. A sample of 941 candidates completed a cognitive ability test in a high-stakes context. Results of both the within-group between-occasions comparison and the between-groups within-occasion comparison indicated that no measurement bias existed during the initial testing but that retesting induced both measurement and predictive bias. Specifically, the results suggest that the factor underlying the retest scores was less saturated with g and more associated with memory than the latent factor underlying initial test scores and that these changes eliminated the test's criterion-related validity. This study's implications for retesting theory, practice, and research are discussed.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1672 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!