Previous research has suggested that selection procedures and performance evaluations are not unfair to minorities. Results of a meta-analysis indicated that Whites performed higher than non-Whites on cognitive ability tests (d = .464) and on supervisory ratings (d = .284), but not on objective results (d = -.009) and that validities between the tests and ratings and results were not significantly different. In addition, a comparison of predicted to actual mean standardized criterion differences between White and non-White subgroups suggested that cognitive ability underpredicted actual differences in supervisory ratings. These results imply that researchers and policymakers need to continue to evaluate fairness in testing and performance evaluation because, contrary to prior evidence, the use of cognitive ability tests may indeed be unfair to non-Whites.
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1985.
2.
ANRIG, G. R."Golden Rule": Second thoughts [Letter to the Editor]. APA Monitor, January 1987, 3-3.
3.
ARVEY, R. D., & FALEY, R. H.Fairness in selecting employees (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1988.
4.
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. Employment and earnings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1991.
5.
CLEARY, T. A.Test bias: Prediction of grades of Negro and White students in integrated colleges. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1968, 5, 115-124.
6.
COHEN, J., & COHEN, P.Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983.
7.
COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS AND ASSESSMENT (August 11 1988). Implications for test fairness of the "Golden Rule" company settlement. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1973.
8.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 1978, 43, 38290-38315.
9.
FORD, J. K., KRAIGER, K., & SCHECHTMAN, S. L.Study of race effects in objective indices and subjective evaluations of performance: A meta-analysis of performance criteria. Psychological Bulletin, 1986, 99, 330-337.
10.
HARTIGAN, J. A., & WIGDOR, A. K. (Eds.). Fairness in employment testing: Validity generalization, minority issues, and the General Aptitude Test Battery. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science Press, 1989.
11.
HENEMAN, R.The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 1986, 39, 811-826.
12.
HOFFMAN, C. C., NATHAN, B. R., & HOLDEN, L. M.A comparison of validation criteria: Objective versus subjective performance measures and self-versus supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 1991, 44, 601-619.
13.
HUNTER, J. E., SCHMIDT, F. L., & JACKSON, G. B.Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1982.
14.
KRAIGER, K., & FORD, J. K.A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1985, 70, 56-65.
15.
MARCO, G. L.Does the use of test assembly procedures proposed in legislation make any difference in test properties and in the test performance of Black and White test takers?Applied Measurement in Education, 1988, 1, 109-133.
16.
NATHAN, B. R., & ALEXANDER, R. A.A comparison of criteria for test validation: A meta-analytic investigation. Personnel Psychology, 1988, 41, 517-535.
17.
PEARLMAN, K, SCHMIDT, F. L, & HUNTER, J. E.Validity generalization results for tests used to predict job proficiency and training success in clerical occupations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980, 65, 373-406.
18.
PULAKOS, E. D., WHITE, E. A., OPPLER, S. H., & BORMAN, W. C.Examination of race and sex effects on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1989, 74, 770-780.
19.
SACKETT, P. R., ZEDECK, S., & FOGLI, L.Relations between measures of typical and maximum job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1988, 73, 482-486.
20.
SCHMIDT, F. L.The problem of group differences in ability test scores in employment selection. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1988, 33, 272-292.
21.
SCHMIDT, F. L., PEARLMAN, K, HUNTER, J. E., & ROTHSTEIN HIRSH, H.Forty questions about validity generalization and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 1985, 38, 697-798.
22.
SCHMITT, N., GOODING, R. Z., NOE, R. A., & KIRSCH, M.Meta-analyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 1984, 37, 407-422.
23.
SCHMITT, N., & NOE, R. A.Personnel selection and equal employment opportunity. In C. L. Cooper and I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. New York: John Wiley, 1986, pp. 71-115.
24.
SOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL-ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures. College Park, MD: Author, 1987.
25.
VANCE, R. J., MacCALLUM, R. C., COOVERT, M. D., & HEDGE, J. W.Construct validity of multiple job performance measures using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1988, 73, 74-80.
