Hypotheses Criteria: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (24 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Introduction= | =Introduction= | ||
The hypotheses of the GRI | The hypotheses of the GRI general framework were developed to address a specific research question about the relationship between the "Use of Assessment techniques" and an “Organization’s Performance". | ||
The theoretical concept of "Use of assessment techniques" was defined during an initial phase by analyzing the use of assessment techniques and the nine variables of use: "Organizational Development," "Leadership," "Coaching," "Recruitment," "Clinical," "Entertainment," "Self and Social Awareness," "Learning," and "Language and Signs." To operationally define the relationship between the use of assessment techniques and organizational performance, we define agreement as the two variables moving in the same direction. Conversely, disagreement happens when one variable progresses in the opposite direction from the other. | |||
The hypotheses are formulated to create a valid explanation for the | Confronting the concepts of "Use of assessment techniques" built from literature (deductively) and from the field (inductively) enabled building preliminary hypotheses that are refutable and can be confirmed and tested<ref>Zaltman, G, Pinson, C., Angelmar, R. (1973). Metatheory and Consumer Research, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Wintson.</ref>. The hypotheses are formulated to create a valid explanation for the connection between the "Use of the assessment technique" by individuals and "Performance". These hypotheses meet the requirements of plausibility, verifiability, precision, generalizability, and communicability, as detailed below<ref>Mace G, Pétry F. (2000). Guide d’élaboration d’un projet de recherche en science sociales. DeBoeck Université.</ref>. | ||
=Plausibility= | =Plausibility= | ||
A hypothesis should be strongly | A hypothesis should be strongly linked to the phenomenon it aims to explain. It should not merely state an obvious truth but allow for some uncertainty. The relevance of the hypothesis is directly tied to the knowledge gained about the subject under study. | ||
Based on the current state of research and practice, after phase 1 validated the use of personality assessments by leaders, | Based on the current state of research and practice, after phase 1 validated the use of personality assessments by leaders, the focus was expanded to assessment techniques in general and other users, while maintaining the same dependent variable. The expansion was made possible by a new area of exploration, advances in techniques and their commercialization, and the development of new tools and methods at GRI. | ||
=Verifiability= | =Verifiability= | ||
The | The availability of information is a key factor in verifying a hypothesis. The hypothesis relies on the overall problem elements and the type of data accessible for testing. | ||
The information used for verification includes recorded field observations and interviews, performance measures from adaptive profiles, and additional online data about individuals and companies. These elements help the hypotheses focus on the connection between the "use of assessment technique" and "performance." | |||
= | =Precision= | ||
The hypothesis should have a broader explanatory power that extends beyond specific instances. One way to achieve this is | When formulating hypotheses, it is essential to avoid ambiguity or confusion regarding the selection of key concepts or terms and the proposed relationships among them. The key terms of the hypothesis must be precise enough to represent the phenomena under study accurately, and the relationship among these phenomena must be specified to avoid ambiguity. To achieve this, the expression of hypotheses has been minimized. | ||
=Generalizability= | |||
The hypothesis should have a broader explanatory power that extends beyond specific instances. One way to achieve this is to ensure that it is grounded in a theoretical approach, as is the case with the assumptions employed. It is also essential to begin with a broad field of exploration, as it has been and remains the case. This aspect is presented in a separate article<ref>[[Large Exploration Field | See more information here about the large exploration field]], how observations were conducted, and the notes taken. It also presents how fields evolved over the three exploration phases.</ref>. | |||
=Communicability= | =Communicability= | ||
Hypotheses should be clear and straightforward so that they can be easily understood and verified. For this reason the aspects related to semiotics and language are | Hypotheses should be clear and straightforward so that they can be easily understood and verified. For this reason, the aspects related to semiotics and language, which are somewhat more abstract but are key, are addressed at the end. | ||
=Notes= | =Notes= | ||
[[Category:Notes]] | [[Category:Notes]] | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:General Framework]] | ||
Latest revision as of 21:49, 10 December 2025
Introduction
The hypotheses of the GRI general framework were developed to address a specific research question about the relationship between the "Use of Assessment techniques" and an “Organization’s Performance".
The theoretical concept of "Use of assessment techniques" was defined during an initial phase by analyzing the use of assessment techniques and the nine variables of use: "Organizational Development," "Leadership," "Coaching," "Recruitment," "Clinical," "Entertainment," "Self and Social Awareness," "Learning," and "Language and Signs." To operationally define the relationship between the use of assessment techniques and organizational performance, we define agreement as the two variables moving in the same direction. Conversely, disagreement happens when one variable progresses in the opposite direction from the other.
Confronting the concepts of "Use of assessment techniques" built from literature (deductively) and from the field (inductively) enabled building preliminary hypotheses that are refutable and can be confirmed and tested[1]. The hypotheses are formulated to create a valid explanation for the connection between the "Use of the assessment technique" by individuals and "Performance". These hypotheses meet the requirements of plausibility, verifiability, precision, generalizability, and communicability, as detailed below[2].
Plausibility
A hypothesis should be strongly linked to the phenomenon it aims to explain. It should not merely state an obvious truth but allow for some uncertainty. The relevance of the hypothesis is directly tied to the knowledge gained about the subject under study.
Based on the current state of research and practice, after phase 1 validated the use of personality assessments by leaders, the focus was expanded to assessment techniques in general and other users, while maintaining the same dependent variable. The expansion was made possible by a new area of exploration, advances in techniques and their commercialization, and the development of new tools and methods at GRI.
Verifiability
The availability of information is a key factor in verifying a hypothesis. The hypothesis relies on the overall problem elements and the type of data accessible for testing.
The information used for verification includes recorded field observations and interviews, performance measures from adaptive profiles, and additional online data about individuals and companies. These elements help the hypotheses focus on the connection between the "use of assessment technique" and "performance."
Precision
When formulating hypotheses, it is essential to avoid ambiguity or confusion regarding the selection of key concepts or terms and the proposed relationships among them. The key terms of the hypothesis must be precise enough to represent the phenomena under study accurately, and the relationship among these phenomena must be specified to avoid ambiguity. To achieve this, the expression of hypotheses has been minimized.
Generalizability
The hypothesis should have a broader explanatory power that extends beyond specific instances. One way to achieve this is to ensure that it is grounded in a theoretical approach, as is the case with the assumptions employed. It is also essential to begin with a broad field of exploration, as it has been and remains the case. This aspect is presented in a separate article[3].
Communicability
Hypotheses should be clear and straightforward so that they can be easily understood and verified. For this reason, the aspects related to semiotics and language, which are somewhat more abstract but are key, are addressed at the end.
Notes
- ↑ Zaltman, G, Pinson, C., Angelmar, R. (1973). Metatheory and Consumer Research, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Wintson.
- ↑ Mace G, Pétry F. (2000). Guide d’élaboration d’un projet de recherche en science sociales. DeBoeck Université.
- ↑ See more information here about the large exploration field, how observations were conducted, and the notes taken. It also presents how fields evolved over the three exploration phases.