Evaluating measurement scale questions

User Generated

cnqneb1975

Business Finance

Description

You will use the same scale in the attached article ( Same article that you just read concerning the management profile record-MPR test) and examine the actual questions that make up the scale. Address the following in your paper:

  • What communication approach is inherent in this scale design?
  • What is the breakdown of types of questions (administrative, classification, target, et cetera)?
  • What is your analysis of the question content, when examining the questions themselves? Wording? Response choice?
  • Do you agree with the question sequencing?

Other Requirements

Your paper should meet the following requirements:

  • Written communication: Written communication is free of errors that detract from the overall message.
  • APA formatting: All resources and citations should be formatted according to current APA style and formatting guidelines.
  • Length: No more than three typed, double-spaced pages (but excluding cover page).
  • Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Review of the Manager Profile Record by WILLIAM I. SAUSER, JR., Associate Vice President and Professor, Office of the Vice President for Extension, Auburn University, Auburn, AL: Citation of the article: Sauer, W. I. (1985). Review of the Manager Profile Record. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=f8dbb5e790bc-4fee-bc449a86b698bd2c%40sessionmgr120&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=t est.884&db=mmt The early identification of management potential through the use of self-reported biographical, attitudinal, and judgmental data has been the focus of several major research projects over the past few decades (Bentz, 1990; Howard & Bray, 1990; Owens, 1976). The Manager Profile Record (MPR) is based upon one such project, a collaborative effort begun in the 1950s between Richardson, Bellows, Henry and Company (the authors of the MPR) and Standard Oil of New Jersey (Sparks, 1990). This reviewer concurs with its authors that the MPR appears suitable for several purposes, including (a) to serve as an inexpensive prescreen for assessment center systems and as an objective check against center results; (b) to audit present staff to inventory potential managers; (c) to identify potential candidates for managerial training, particularly for affirmative action purposes; and (d) to be used as one component of a management recruitment and selection program. Throughout their descriptive materials the authors properly warn potential users that the MPR does not measure intellectual capacity or past achievement, thus it should certainly not be used as the sole selection device for promotion into managerial ranks. The MPR test booklet is very professional in appearance. Part I contains 196 multiple-choice items, the last 57 of which are intended only for examinees with at least 5 years of full-time work experience. Items deal with such topics as high school, work, and college experiences; preferred work environment and managerial style; and personal habits and tendencies. The items are clearly worded, face valid, and not overly intrusive; no racial, gender, or cultural bias is evident in any of the items. Many of the items call for self-assessments, and may be subject to faking, social desirability, or other such response sets. Part II consists of 46 situational item stems followed by multiple-choice options, of which the examinee selects a first and second choice; it is clearly intended to measure managerial judgment. These items are more complex than those in Part I, are quite challenging, and are intrinsically interesting to potential and practicing managers; they appear much less susceptible to response set bias. Instructions to the examinee are clear and easy to follow, the machine-scorable answer sheet presents no problems, and the authors provide useful suggestions to test administrators regarding such issues as standardization of testing conditions, test security, confidentiality, and interpretation. The test is not timed. Although the authors suggest providing a generous 3 hours or more to complete the MPR, this reviewer's experience indicates that most examinees likely will finish within 90 to 120 minutes. Scoring procedures for the MPR are proprietary; they are evidently based on an empirically keyed profile matching technique. (Potential users should note that this approach tends to identify individuals with response patterns similar to successful current managers, and may serve to perpetuate current managerial styles while hindering the development of new approaches to management.) Results are reported for the 11 categories noted above, but the authors suggest using only the overall score for decision-making purposes; the others are for research use only (a caveat which this reviewer suspects is often ignored in practice). The authors correctly note that longitudinal, predictive validation research would be ideal for the MPR, but admit that most of the validation and normative work has been concurrent in nature, employing various measures of managerial progression as the criterion. Sixteen such studies are outlined in the manual, typically employing several hundred managers and potential managers as subjects and yielding validity coefficients in the .27 to .70 range. Results of a cumulative study, based on the scores of over 5,000 examinees, show a correlation of .51 using progression to the top half of the hierarchy of management as the criterion. Results of this study are reported in the form of an expectancy chart for each of seven segments of the range of overall scores, making interpretation of MPR scores very easy for potential users. Users also are urged by the authors to carry out their own local validation studies, with the authors' assistance at little or no cost. From a technical standpoint the MPR manual has several important shortcomings. For example, no reliability coefficients, standard error of measurement data, or standard error of estimate data are reported. There is no information given regarding the stability of scores or predictions over time. Norm tables are not provided. Although the authors claim that the MPR is equally as predictive for minorities and women as for white males, no evidence for this claim is displayed in the manual. (The authors do, however, offer to provide "Washington representation if MPR problems arise with federal equal employment agencies.") Another shortcoming is that the potential problems of faking and other response set difficulties are never addressed in the manual, nor are any procedures described to detect examinees who desire to portray themselves in a false but more favorable light. The authors are urged to address these issues in future editions of the test manual. In summary, the MPR is a well-designed self-report measure which appears useful as an aid to the identification of prospective managers. Despite the technical shortcomings mentioned above, the test appears well grounded in research and theory and has an impressive track record for identifying individuals with a profile of biographical, attitudinal, and judgmental scores which relate to success in the managerial ranks. The MPR, when used in conjunction with measures of job-related aptitude and achievement, could be a valuable tool for management recruitment and selection.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

please find the attached file. let me know if any adjustments are needed, i look forward to working with you again. good bye

Running head: MANAGER PROFILE RECORD

Manager Profile Record (MPR)
Name
Institution
Course
Date

1

MANAGER PROFILE RECORD

2

Manager Profile Record (MPR)
What are the shortcomings of the MPR?
MPR is associated with some notable shortcomings. For example, there is lack of
reliability of coefficients, occurrence of standard error during data measurement and absence of
standard error of data being estimated and reported (Sauer,1985). Evidently there is absence of
comprehensive explanation regarding the stability of the predictions and scores being generated.
MPR fails to provide norm tables. There is lack of concrete evidence to justify the sentiments
made by authors that MPR is equally as predictive for minorities and women as for white males;
thus biasness arise. MPR fails to address notable problems of faking and other difficulties that
are being addressed in the manual. MPR does not provide candid procedures for detecting
examinees that might be portraying themselves in a weird manner. There is urgent need to
develop effective measures of dealing with some of these shortcomings that have been identified
in this report.
What items are dealt in the MPR booklet?
MPR contain two major parts each having its own item...


Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags