Construction, validation, and derivation of performance standards for a fitness test for correctional officer applicants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to develop and validate a fitness test for correctional officer (CO) applicants (FITCO) and to establish associated standards of acceptability. The FITCO incorporated the most important, physically demanding, and frequently occurring tasks of a CO. It consists of (i) a simulated cell search; (ii) an emergency response circuit (ERC), involving a 60-m run while scaling 4 sets of stairs, followed by simulations of an inmate control, wrist restraint, arm retraction, and 40-m mannequin drag; and (iii) a test of aerobic fitness. The validity of the FITCO was established by very high congruence between the oxygen consumption, heart rate, and rating of perceived exertion of incumbent COs while performing the ERC with the same measurements while COs were performing the on-the-job tasks on which the ERC was based. The content validity of the FITCO was confirmed by very high Likert ratings (>6 on a 7-point scale) by both male and female incumbent COs of all ages concerning the importance, relatedness, physical demands, and overall appropriateness of the FITCO for evaluating CO applicants. We conclude that because the forces built into the ERC and the FITCO standards were both derived from the performance of safe and efficient incumbent female COs of all ages, and both the validity and test-retest reliability (intraclass correllation coefficient = 0.977) of the FITCO are very high, the FITCO was properly constructed to meet the requirements of the Supreme Court of Canada's Meiorin Decision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".