Define composite criterion and multiple criteria. Give some arguments for and against approach, and discuss either which you think is better to use and/or how the argument can be resolved.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Varies, but may contain some of the following information. The basic contention of Brogden and Taylor (1950a), Thorndike (1949), Toops (1944), and Nagle (1953), the strongest advocates of the composite criterion, is that the criterion should provide a yardstick or overall measure of “success” or “value to the organization” of each individual. Such a single index is indispensable in decision-making and individual comparisons, and even if the criterion dimensions are treated separately in validation, they must somehow be combined into a composite when a decision is required. Advocates of multiple criteria contend that measures of demonstrably different variables should not be combined. In measuring the effectiveness of the recruiters, the researchers found that selling skills, human relations skills, and organizing skills all were important and related to success. They also found, however, that the three dimensions were unrelated to each other--that is, the recruiter with the best selling skills did not necessarily have the best human relations skills or the best organizing skills, in behavior at work and its various consequences of value.

Schmidt and Kaplan (1971) subsequently pointed out that combining various criterion elements into a composite does imply that there is a single underlying dimension in job performance, but it does not, in and of itself, imply that this single underlying dimension is behavioral or psychological in nature. A composite criterion may well represent an underlying economic dimension, while at the same time being essentially meaningless from a behavioral point of view. Thus, Brogden and Taylor (1950a) argued that when all of the criteria are relevant measures of economic variables (dollars and cents), they can be combined into a composite, regardless of their intercorrelations. As Schmidt and Kaplan (1971) and Binning and Barrett (1989) have noted, the two positions differ in terms of (1) the nature of the underlying constructs represented by the respective criterion measures and (2) what they regard to be the primary purpose of the validation process itself. The resolution of the composite criterion versus multiple criteria dilemma essentially depends on the objectives. Both methods are legitimate for their own purposes. If the goal is increased psychological understanding of predictor–criterion relationships, then the criterion elements are best kept separate. If managerial decision-making is the objective, then the criterion elements should be weighted, regardless of their intercorrelations, into a composite representing an economic construct of overall worth to the organization.