Christopher M Berry, Filip Lievens, Charlene Zhang, Paul R Sackett
{"title":"Insights from an updated personnel selection meta-analytic matrix: Revisiting general mental ability tests' role in the validity-diversity trade-off.","authors":"Christopher M Berry, Filip Lievens, Charlene Zhang, Paul R Sackett","doi":"10.1037/apl0001203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>General mental ability (GMA) tests have long been at the heart of the validity-diversity trade-off, with conventional wisdom being that reducing their weight in personnel selection can improve adverse impact, but that this results in steep costs to criterion-related validity. However, Sackett et al. (2022) revealed that the criterion-related validity of GMA tests has been considerably overestimated due to inappropriate range restriction corrections. Thus, we revisit the role of GMA tests in the validity-diversity trade-off using an updated meta-analytic correlation matrix of the relationships six selection methods (biodata, GMA tests, conscientiousness tests, structured interviews, integrity tests, and situational judgment tests) have with job performance, along with their Black-White mean differences. Our results lead to the conclusion that excluding GMA tests generally has little to no effect on validity, but substantially decreases adverse impact. Contrary to popular belief, GMA tests are not a driving factor in the validity-diversity trade-off. This does not fully resolve the validity-diversity trade-off, though: Our results show there is still some validity reduction required to get to an adverse impact ratio of .80, although the validity reduction is less than previously thought. Instead, it shows that the validity-diversity trade-off conversation should shift from the role of GMA tests to that of other selection methods. The present study also addresses which selection methods now emerge as most valid and whether composites of selection methods can result in validities similar to those expected prior to Sackett et al. (2022). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1611-1634"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001203","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
General mental ability (GMA) tests have long been at the heart of the validity-diversity trade-off, with conventional wisdom being that reducing their weight in personnel selection can improve adverse impact, but that this results in steep costs to criterion-related validity. However, Sackett et al. (2022) revealed that the criterion-related validity of GMA tests has been considerably overestimated due to inappropriate range restriction corrections. Thus, we revisit the role of GMA tests in the validity-diversity trade-off using an updated meta-analytic correlation matrix of the relationships six selection methods (biodata, GMA tests, conscientiousness tests, structured interviews, integrity tests, and situational judgment tests) have with job performance, along with their Black-White mean differences. Our results lead to the conclusion that excluding GMA tests generally has little to no effect on validity, but substantially decreases adverse impact. Contrary to popular belief, GMA tests are not a driving factor in the validity-diversity trade-off. This does not fully resolve the validity-diversity trade-off, though: Our results show there is still some validity reduction required to get to an adverse impact ratio of .80, although the validity reduction is less than previously thought. Instead, it shows that the validity-diversity trade-off conversation should shift from the role of GMA tests to that of other selection methods. The present study also addresses which selection methods now emerge as most valid and whether composites of selection methods can result in validities similar to those expected prior to Sackett et al. (2022). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
