Skip to main content

Article 14/2022

What is the meaning of the concepts of standardisation, reliability and validity applicable to psychometric testing?

_____________________________________

Standardisation

  • to enable an employee’s scores on a test to be meaningfully interpreted, the test is to be standardised on a population similar to that on which it has been designed to be used (e.g. in respect of 15 FQ+P, people with a wide range of technical, managerial, professional, sales and administrative/clerical roles)
  • such standardisation ensures that the scores obtained in a test can be meaningfully interpreted by referring them to a relevant distribution of scores

Reliability

  • in essence, reliability refers to the requirement that a test must consistently measure a construct
  • reliability is generally assessed using one of two different methods, namely –
  • assessing the stability of the test’s scores over a time period: referred to as temporal stability – it involves determining the extent to which a group of people obtain similar scores on a test when it is administered at two different points in time
  • internal consistency – this method of assessing a test’s reliability involves determining the extent to which, if people score one way on one item (i.e. respond to one item in an introverted way) they will respond in the same way to other items in the test that measure the same construct (i.e. respond in an introverted manner to other test items)

Validity

  • this refers to the requirement that the test should measure what it claims to measure
  • in this regard, there are two approaches, namely:
  • construct validity – by utilising this requirement, the test is required to demonstrate that it correlates with other major tests which measure related constructs but does not correlate with tests that measure different constructs
  • criterion validity – the validity of a test in terms of this method involves demonstrating that the test meaningfully predicts some real-world criteria (e.g. a valid test of extroversion might be expected to predict success in sales roles, while a valid test of consciousness might be expected to predict success in administrative roles)
August 17, 2026

We think that everyone understands that an employer is vicariously liable for the wrong committed (an act or omission) by its employee during the course/scope/sphere of employment/engagement in any activity reasonably incidental to it.

But, what is the extent of an employer’s vicarious liability where the employee commits a wrong on his or her own volition?

August 10, 2026

What is the content of traditional consensus to indicate that an agreement exists between an employer and an employee?

If, on the traditional theory of consensus, a party fails to prove an agreement upon which it relies, with reference to Sonap Petroleum SA (Pty) Ltd v Pappadogianis 1992 (3) SA 234 (A), on what basis can a finding be made that quasi-mutual assent exists, founded on the approach that a party is precluded from denying the existence of an agreement based on their own conduct and the circumstances?

What does the three-fold enquiry entail to determine the presence of quasi-mutual assent?

In determining whether an agreement has been reached in the absence of traditional consensus, but on the basis of quasi-mutual assent, what is the extent of the duty on the party wishing to rely on such an agreement to, on the basis of reasonableness, enquire as to the contradictions that exist in the position of the other party so contained in correspondence?

August 3, 2026

Where do delictual claims fit into dispute resolution options applicable to employment disputes?