Synthetic Validity: A Great Idea Whose Time Never Came

Synthetic validity is very much like monogamy. It is an idea that is universally admired but not widely practiced. The concept of synthetic validity has been around for almost 60 years (Lawshe, 1952) and it is described in virtually every testing and measurement book and every industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology textbook I have ever read. I still vividly remember my undergraduate Psychological Testing professor dismissing synthetic validity as ‘‘made-up validity.’’ I thought he was wrong then, and I still do. Nevertheless, it is worth asking why synthetic validity studies are so rare. There is no doubt that synthetic validity is a great idea. Johnson et al. (2010) do a masterful job laying out the history of synthetic validity, its major assumptions and components, and the many advantages of synthetic validity. They are also realistic (but optimistic) about meeting the challenges of synthetic validity. They argue convincingly that synthetic validity could be a key to advancing both the science and the practice of personnel selection. Indeed, my first reaction on reading their article was ‘‘what’s not to like about synthetic validity?’’ Given all the good ideas built into synthetic validity, how can we explain its failure to catch fire?