The Activity/Achievement Indicator: A Possible Alternative to the Behavioral Consistency Method of Training and Experience Evaluation
This paper describes the development of a new type of selection procedure, the activity/achievement indicator (A/AI), and compares it with the behavioral consistency method of training and experience evaluation. Total scores from these two methods were found to correlate at r = .58. Examination of the six dimension scores of each method by means of the multitrait-multimethod matrix technique revealed convergent validity for only two of the dimensions, and discriminant validity for none. Implications of the findings are discussed.
A Comparative Study of the Behavioral Consistency and Wholistic Judgment Methods of Job Applicant Training and Work Experience Evaluation
he evaluation of job applicant training and work experience (T & E evaluation) constitutes one of the most widely used personnel screening and selection ' procedures. Porter, Levine, and Flory (1976) define T & E evaluation as "a method used to rate or select applicants for employment... in which information provided by applicants on application forms, questionnaires, resumes and/or other documents is evaluated in accordance with a specific plan" (p. 1). The information evaluated is primarily previous work experience, education, and training, and the purpose of the evaluation is the prediction of the job applicants' relative likelihood of success in the job class under consideration. T & E evaluation rating plans are derived by subjective judgment (Maslow, 1968), not the empirical weighting associ­ ated with a weighted biographical data form. At least six different methods of T & E evaluation are described in published literature or in government agency technical reports. These are described briefly in the paragraphs which follow. Note that while six basically different T & E methods can be identified,there are perhaps as many specific variations of T & E methods as there are jurisdictions and organizations which use them (Arvey, McGowen, & Horgan, Note 1). Note further that the first five methods have been operationalized in public sector jurisdictions, while the sixth method — wholistic judgment — appears
Clozapine derived 2,3-dihydro-1H-1,4- and 1,5-benzodiazepines with D4 receptor selectivity: synthesis and biological testing.
Novel 4-arylpiperazin-1-yl-substituted 2,3-dihydro-1H-1,4- and 1H-1,5-benzodiazepines and their aza-analogues were synthesized as debenzoclozapine derivatives for evaluation as potential D4-ligands. While Ki values of some of the title compounds came within the range of clozapine, they showed an impressively greater selectivity over other dopamine receptor subtypes, especially D2. For the most promising compounds, intrinsic activity and binding properties to serotonin 5-HT1A and 5-HT2 were also determined.