New strategies for addressing the diversity-validity dilemma with big data.

IF 9.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Caleb Rottman, Cari Gardner, Joshua Liff, Nathan Mondragon, Lindsey Zuloaga
{"title":"New strategies for addressing the diversity-validity dilemma with big data.","authors":"Caleb Rottman,&nbsp;Cari Gardner,&nbsp;Joshua Liff,&nbsp;Nathan Mondragon,&nbsp;Lindsey Zuloaga","doi":"10.1037/apl0001084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The diversity-validity dilemma is one of the enduring challenges in personnel selection. Technological advances and new techniques for analyzing data within the fields of machine learning and industrial organizational psychology, however, are opening up innovative ways of addressing this dilemma. Given these rapid advances, we first present a framework unifying analytical methods commonly used in these two fields to reduce group differences. We then propose and demonstrate the effectiveness of two approaches for reducing group differences while maintaining validity, which are highly applicable to numerous big data scenarios: iterative predictor removal and multipenalty optimization. Iterative predictor removal is a technique where predictors are removed from the data set if they simultaneously contribute to higher group differences and lower predictive validity. Multipenalty optimization is a new analytical technique that models the diversity-validity trade-off by adding a group difference penalty to the model optimization. Both techniques were tested on a field sample of asynchronous video interviews. Although both techniques effectively decreased group differences while maintaining predictive validity, multipenalty optimization outperformed iterative predictor removal. Strengths and weaknesses of these two analytical techniques are also discussed along with future research directions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":"108 9","pages":"1425-1444"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001084","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The diversity-validity dilemma is one of the enduring challenges in personnel selection. Technological advances and new techniques for analyzing data within the fields of machine learning and industrial organizational psychology, however, are opening up innovative ways of addressing this dilemma. Given these rapid advances, we first present a framework unifying analytical methods commonly used in these two fields to reduce group differences. We then propose and demonstrate the effectiveness of two approaches for reducing group differences while maintaining validity, which are highly applicable to numerous big data scenarios: iterative predictor removal and multipenalty optimization. Iterative predictor removal is a technique where predictors are removed from the data set if they simultaneously contribute to higher group differences and lower predictive validity. Multipenalty optimization is a new analytical technique that models the diversity-validity trade-off by adding a group difference penalty to the model optimization. Both techniques were tested on a field sample of asynchronous video interviews. Although both techniques effectively decreased group differences while maintaining predictive validity, multipenalty optimization outperformed iterative predictor removal. Strengths and weaknesses of these two analytical techniques are also discussed along with future research directions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

大数据解决多样性-有效性困境的新策略。
多样性-效度困境是人才选拔中长期存在的难题之一。然而,机器学习和工业组织心理学领域的技术进步和分析数据的新技术正在开辟解决这一困境的创新方法。鉴于这些快速发展,我们首先提出了一个框架,统一了这两个领域常用的分析方法,以减少群体差异。然后,我们提出并证明了两种方法在保持有效性的同时减少群体差异的有效性,这两种方法非常适用于许多大数据场景:迭代预测器去除和多重惩罚优化。迭代预测器去除是一种技术,如果预测器同时导致较高的组差异和较低的预测有效性,则从数据集中去除预测器。多惩罚优化是一种新的分析技术,通过在模型优化中加入组差惩罚来模拟多样性-有效性权衡。这两种技术都在非同步视频采访的现场样本上进行了测试。尽管这两种技术在保持预测有效性的同时有效地减少了组间差异,但多重惩罚优化优于迭代预测器去除。讨论了这两种分析方法的优缺点,并展望了未来的研究方向。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
175
期刊介绍: The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including: 1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses). 2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research. 3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信