We want to know whether the new measurement procedure really measures intellectual ability. If such a strong, consistent relationship is demonstrated, we can say that the new measurement procedure (i.e., the new intelligence test) has predictive validity. We, therefore, undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Braden Scale predictive and concurrent validity within this context. These are two different types of criterion validity, each of which has a specific purpose. Concurrent validity is determined by comparing tests scores of current employees to a measure of their job performance. Though random effects model results showed that the Scale had good overall predictive ability [RR, 4.33; 95% CI, 3.28–5.72], none of the concurrent samples were found to have “optimal” sensitivity and specificity. For example, you may want to translate a well-established measurement procedure, which is construct valid, from one language (e.g., English) into another (e.g., Chinese or French). As a result, there is a need to take a well-established measurement procedure, which acts as your criterion, but you need to create a new measurement procedure that is more appropriate for the new context, location, and/or culture. In two independent studies (a cross-sectional study and a longitudinal study), we analyzed the concurrent and predictive validity of a task-based neuropsychological impulsivity measure for preschool children. We, therefore, undertook a systematic review and meta‐analysis comparing Braden Scale predictive and concurrent validity within this context. Take the following example: Study #1 Concurrent validity’s main use is to find tests that can substitute other procedures that are less convenient for various reasons. But how do researchers know that the scores actually represent the characteristic, especially when it is a construct like intelligence, self-esteem, depression, or working memory capacity? Predictive Validity VS Concurrent Validity. In this article, we first explain what criterion validity is and when it should be used, before discussing concurrent validity and predictive validity, providing examples of both. Predictive Validity – Research data is collected on people new to the job to determine how well the assessment predicted their success down the road. Predictive Validity is considered a much more powerful support of a selection tool than is concurrent validity. The sample of Study 1 comprised 102 3–5-year-old children (46% boys). To assess criterion validity in your dissertation, you can choose between establishing the concurrent validity or predictive validity of your measurement procedure. Results. You will have to build a case for the criterion validity of your measurement procedure; ultimately, it is something that will be developed over time as more studies validate your measurement procedure. Predictive validity is similar to concurrent validity, as both of them are commonly interpreted as correlations between a test and the relevant criteria (McIntire and Miller 2005). Indeed, sometimes a well-established measurement procedure (e.g., a survey), which has strong construct validity and reliability, is either too long or longer than would be preferable. Like other forms of validity, criterion validity is not something that your measurement procedure has (or doesn't have). Testing for concurrent validity is likely to be simpler, more cost-effective, and less time intensive than predictive validity. • Not working with the population of interest (applicants) • Range restriction -- work performance and test score In psychometrics Concurrent validity is demonstrated when a test correlates well with a measure that has previously been validated. Concurrent validity is a type of Criterion Validity. Concurrent validity is therefore less suited to instruments used to assess potential, rather than current attributes. In a study of concurrent validity the test is administered at the same time as the criterion is collected. Criterion validity A measurement technique has criterion validity if its results are closely related to those given by Predictive validity. Used to measure emotions and cognition: a) Face Validity b) Validity c) Content Validity d) Criterion-Related Validity e) Predictive Validity f) Concurrent Validity