Talk:CernySmith Assessment

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on CernySmith Assessment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.cernysmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Cross-Cultural-Adjustment-Stresses.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.cernysmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/csaicodebook.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.cernysmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Research_CSA-Professional-Article-2008.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.cernysmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/The-CSAI-An-Expatriate-On-Field-Adjustment-Index....pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211022840/http://www.cernysmith.com:80/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/CSAI-Cerny-Smith-Ritschard-Dodd-ICF-2007.pdf to http://www.cernysmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/CSAI-Cerny-Smith-Ritschard-Dodd-ICF-2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Unpublished Research and POV
Hi. Just passing through. Sometimes I randomly comment on article issues, and there appear to be couple with this one. They could be divided into two sections here on Talk but I'll keep them together for brevity. First, the very, very long quote is an excerpt from unpublished research (according to the quote's introductory text.) Unless and until it passes peer review, it might not deserve to be included in the article at all. Therefore, if it is included, it certainly should not be several times longer than the rest of the article's cited research. If anyone here concurs, please feel free to remove or significantly shorten the quoted passage of text. Second, it appears that there are many studies with results that shed positive light on the subject, but surely there must be some findings that are negative, or at least constructively critique the subject, right? If not, then I suspect most research being performed on CernySmith's reliability, validity, value, etc. isn't truly conducted by neutral and dispassionate observers, but rather by CernySmith enthusiasts possessing the potential to suffer observer bias. If most people are motivated to research CernySmith because they already think it has predictive potential, they are statistically likely to reach foregone conclusions more positive than negative. That notwithstanding, I suggest this article would benefit from the balance added through cited research or published evaluation that is't 100% flattering to the subject (if any exists.) IMHO, y'know.49.228.245.135 (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)