Sheldon Zedeck

Further exploration of typical and maximum performance criteria: definitional issues, prediction, and White−Black differences

This article addresses differences between typical and maximum performance criteria and has a threefold purpose. First, it examines the growing recognition that it is important to distinguish between typical and maximum performance criteria. Second, clarification of definitional and measurement issues are addressed. Third, results of an empirical study are offered to contribute to the new knowledge base regarding typical and maximum performance criteria. The study investigates differences in validities of cognitive ability predictor measures against supermarket cashier typical and maximum performance criteria reflecting speed and accuracy. White-Black mean score differences on typical and maximum performance criteria are also examined

Admission to Law School: New Measures.

Standardized tests have been increasingly controversial over recent years in high-stakes admission decisions. Their role in operationalizing definitions of merit and qualification is especially contested, but in law schools this challenge has become particularly intense. Law schools have relied on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) and an INDEX (which includes grade point average [GPA]) since the 1940s. The LSAT measures analytic and logical reasoning and reading. Research has focused on the validity of the LSAT as a predictor of 1st-year GPA in law school, with almost no research on predicting lawyering effectiveness. This article examines the comparative potential between the LSAT versus noncognitive (e.g., personality, situational judgment, and biographical information) predictors of lawyering effectiveness. Theoretical links between 26 lawyering effectiveness factors and potential predictors are discussed and evaluated. Implications for broadening the criterion space, diversity in admissions, and the practice of law are discussed.