Validation of an instrument means that individuals and organizations can make reliable strategic decisions, based on survey results, about where to focus their development efforts.

In order for an instrument to be valid it needs to be compared to another measure. In most cases the other measure is internal performance within the organization such as rate of promotion, bonus as related to salary, etc. If there is consistent high correlation between an assessment measure and the performance measures internally then the instrument is valid.

Leaders, managers and individual contributors can trust that TBC's assessments are valid measures of the skills required for high performance on the job. In fact, since 1973, Task Cycle® Surveys have set the standards for validity and reliability in 360 assessments. To quote one of the many 3rd party evaluations of TC surveys (Shipper, 1995), "...the skill scales have the psychometric properties of internal consistency, interrater agreement, construct validity, divergent discriminant validity and both internal and external criterion validity."






Each survey is thoroughly researched and designed to fit a unique and vital organizational role.

A "role-specific" survey assures that the skills and development plan will be relevant to performance improvement. It increases validity, efficiency and credibility for the participant and the raters.





Each survey contains questions covering only those observable, role-related concepts that can be trained or otherwise developed. They specifically exclude personality traits, which are unlikely to change anyway.





Since 1973 with the release of Survey of Management Practices and Survey of Peer Relations, we have maintained a battery of stock surveys for leadership and management roles and teams. These have been revised and customized for clients into over 250 different versions and 24 languages.

Approximately 200 million item responses have been collected on these surveys. The norm base for any new title is drawn from dimensions (sub-scales) that have been used in other versions, pilot studies and estimates from our historic database. The general norms for current titles are reviewed and updated as needed, typically every two years.

Good measurement is crucial to change programs. You need to know where you stand at the start and when you finish. Otherwise, you have no accountability. To do this, your assessment must meet two basic criteria:

• They must yield operational relevance. The dimensions must make sense to all participants and executives concerned. They must also demonstrate practical validity, meaning that scores on the instruments must relate to performance.
  
  Otherwise, if the instruments have face validity only - acceptable because they look right - but have not been shown to relate to measured performance, then you have a problem justifying investments in your programs. If you do not have good assessments of performance, you should use instruments whose validity can be demonstrated on comparable jobs.



• They must be sufficiently reliable over time to assess any change resulting from your programs. If the measures are less reliable than necessary, any change can be mistakenly interpreted. Change may appear to take place when in fact, it does not; or conversely, good change programs may be evaluated negatively because real differences are unreliably measured.