Substantial mean score differences and significant adverse impact have long motivated the question of whether cognitive ability tests are biased against certain non-White subgroups. This article presents a framework for understanding the interrelated issues of adverse impact and test bias, with particular focus on two forms of test bias especially relevant for personnel selection: differential validity and differential prediction. Ethical and legal reasons that organizations should be concerned about differential validity/prediction are discussed. This article also serves as a critical review of the research literature on differential validity/prediction. The general conclusion is that available evidence supports the existence of differential validity/prediction in the form of correlation/slope and intercept differences between White and non-White subgroups. Implications for individuals and organizations are outlined, and a future research agenda is proposed highlighting the need for new, better data; new, better methods of testing for differential validity/prediction; and investigation of substantive factors causing differential validity/prediction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. AERA (Am. Educ. Res. Assoc.), APA (Am. Psychol. Assoc.), NCME (Natl. Counc. Meas. Educ.) 1999. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Washington, DC: AERA [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguinis H, Beaty JC, Boik RJ, Pierce CA. 2005. Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: a 30-year review. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:94–107 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aguinis H, Culpepper SA, Pierce CA. 2010. Revival of test bias research in preemployment testing. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:648–80 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aguinis H, Smith MA. 2007. Understanding the impact of test validity and bias on selection errors and adverse impact in human resource selection. Pers. Psychol. 60:165–99 [Google Scholar]
  5. Aguinis H, Stone-Romero EF. 1997. Methodological artifacts in moderated multiple regression and their effects on statistical power. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:192–206 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bartlett CJ, Bobko P, Mosier SB, Hannan R. 1978. Testing for fairness with a moderated multiple regression strategy: an alternative to differential analysis. Pers. Psychol. 31:233–41 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berry CM. 2007. Toward an understanding of evidence of differential validity of cognitive ability tests for racial/ethnic subgroups. PhD Thesis, Univ. Minn., Minneap
  8. Berry CM, Barratt CL, Dovalina CL, Zhao P. 2014a. Can racial/ethnic subgroup criterion-to-test standard deviation ratios account for conflicting differential validity and differential prediction evidence for cognitive ability tests?. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 87:208–20 [Google Scholar]
  9. Berry CM, Clark MA, McClure TK. 2011. Racial/ethnic differences in the criterion-related validity of cognitive ability tests: a qualitative and quantitative review. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:881–906 [Google Scholar]
  10. Berry CM, Cullen MJ, Meyer JM. 2014b. Racial/ethnic subgroup differences in cognitive ability test range restriction: implications for differential validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:21–37 [Google Scholar]
  11. Berry CM, Kim A, Wang Y, Thompson R, Mobley WH. 2013a. Five-factor model personality measures and sex-based differential prediction of performance. Appl. Psychol. 62:13–43 [Google Scholar]
  12. Berry CM, Sackett PR, Sund A. 2013b. The role of range restriction and criterion contamination in assessing differential validity by race/ethnicity. J. Bus. Psychol. 28:345–59 [Google Scholar]
  13. Berry CM, Zhao P. 2015. Addressing criticisms of existing predictive bias research: Cognitive ability test scores still overpredict African Americans’ job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:162–79 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bobko P, Roth PL, Potosky D. 1999. Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance. Pers. Psychol. 52:561–89 [Google Scholar]
  15. Canivez GL, Konold TR. 2001. Assessing differential prediction bias in the Developing Cognitive Abilities Test across gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic groups. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 61:159–71 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen GW, Casper WJ, Cortina JM. 2001. The roles of self-efficacy and task complexity in relationships among cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and work-related performance: a meta-analytic examination. Hum. Perform. 14:3209–30 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gatewood RD, Field HS, Barrick MR. 2008. Human Resource Selection Mason, OH: South-West, 6th ed.. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hartigan JA, Wigdor AK. 1989. Differential validity and differential prediction. Fairness in Employment Testing: Validity Generalization, Non-White Issues, and the General Aptitude Test Battery Hartigan JA, Wigdor AK. 172–88 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  19. Hough LM, Oswald FL, Ployhart RE. 2001. Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: issues, evidence and lessons learned. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 9:152–94 [Google Scholar]
  20. Huffcutt AI, Roth PL. 1998. Racial group differences in employment interview evaluations. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:179–89 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. 1976. Critical analysis of the statistical and ethical implications of various definitions of test bias. Psychol. Bull. 83:1053–71 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. 1978. Differential and single-group validity of employment tests by race: a critical analysis of three recent studies. J. Appl. Psychol. 63:1–11 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. 2004. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings New York: Sage, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Hunter R. 1979. Differential validity of employment tests by race: a comprehensive review and analysis. Psychol. Bull. 86:721–35 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Le H. 2006. Implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:594–612 [Google Scholar]
  26. Katzell RA, Dyer FJ. 1977. Differential validity revived. J. Appl. Psychol. 62:137–45 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kepes S, Banks GC, McDaniel M, Whetzel DL. 2012. Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organ. Res. Methods 15:624–62 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim A, Berry CM. 2015. Individual differences in social dominance orientation predict support for the use of cognitive ability tests. J. Personal. 83:14–25 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lautenschlager GJ, Mendoza JL. 1986. A step-down hierarchical multiple regression analysis for examining hypotheses about test bias in prediction. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 10:133–39 [Google Scholar]
  30. Linn RL. 1983. Pearson selection formulas: implications for studies of predictive bias and estimates of educational effects in selected samples. J. Educ. Meas. 20:1–15 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mattern KD, Patterson BF. 2013. Test of slope and intercept bias in college admissions: a response to Aguinis, Culpepper, and Pierce (2010). J. Appl. Psychol. 98:134–47 [Google Scholar]
  32. McDaniel MA, Kepes S, Banks GC. 2011. The Uniform Guidelines are a detriment to the field of personnel selection. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 4:494–514 [Google Scholar]
  33. McKay PF, McDaniel MA. 2006. A reexamination of Black-White mean differences in work performance: more data, more moderators. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:538–54 [Google Scholar]
  34. Murphy KR, Jacobs RR. 2012. Using effect size measures to reform the determination of adverse impact in equal employment litigation. Psychol. Public Policy Law 18:477–99 [Google Scholar]
  35. O’Connor EJ, Wexley KN, Alexander RA. 1975. Single-group validity: fact or fallacy?. J. Appl. Psychol. 60:352–55 [Google Scholar]
  36. O’Neill KA, McPeek WM. 1993. Item and test characteristics that are associated with differential item functioning. Differential Item Functioning Holland PW, Wainer H. 255–76 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  37. Patterson BF, Mattern KD. 2011. Validity of the SAT for predicting first-year grades: 2008 SAT validity sample. Stat. Rep. No. 2011–5, Coll. Board, New York
  38. Ployhart RE, Holtz BC. 2008. The diversity-validity dilemma: strategies for reducing racioethnic and sex subgroup differences and adverse impact in selection. Pers. Psychol. 61:153–71 [Google Scholar]
  39. Roth PL, Bevier CA, Bobko P, Switzer FS, Tyler P. 2001. Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 54:297–330 [Google Scholar]
  40. Roth PL, Huffcutt AI, Bobko P. 2003. Ethnic group differences in measures of job performance: a new meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:694–706 [Google Scholar]
  41. Roth PL, Le H, Oh I, Van Iddekinge CH, Buster MA et al. 2014. Differential validity for cognitive ability tests in employment and educational settings: not much more than range restriction?. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:1–20 [Google Scholar]
  42. Rotundo M, Sackett PR. 1999. Effect of rater race on conclusions regarding differential prediction in cognitive ability tests. J. Appl. Psychol. 84:815–22 [Google Scholar]
  43. Saad S, Sackett PR. 2002. Investigating differential prediction by gender in employment-oriented personality measures. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:667–74 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sackett PR, Borneman MJ, Connelly BS. 2008. High stakes testing in higher education and employment: appraising the evidence for validity and fairness. Am. Psychol. 63:215–27 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sackett PR, Schmitt N, Ellingson JE, Kabin MB. 2001. High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education: prospects in a post-affirmative-action world. Am. Psychol. 56:302–18 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. 1981. Employment testing: old theories and new research findings. Am. Psychol. 36:1128–37 [Google Scholar]
  47. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. 1998. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychol. Bull. 124:262–74 [Google Scholar]
  48. Schmidt FL, Pearlman K, Hunter JE. 1980. The validity and fairness of employment and educational tests for Hispanic Americans: a review and analysis. Pers. Psychol. 33:705–24 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schmitt N. 2014. Personality and cognitive ability as predictors of effective performance at work. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1:45–65 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schult J, Hell B, Passler K, Schuler H. 2013. Sex-specific differential prediction of academic achievement by German ability tests. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 21:130–34 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sidanius J, Pratto F. 1999. Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  52. SIOP (Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol.) 2003. Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures Bowling Green, OH: SIOP, 4th ed. [Google Scholar]
  53. Steele CM, Aronson J. 1995. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 69:797–811 [Google Scholar]
  54. Whetzel DL, McDaniel MA, Nguyen NT. 2008. Subgroup differences in situational judgment test performance: a meta-analysis. Hum. Perform. 21:291–309 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error