Andrew P Tenbrink,Andrew B Speer,Lauren J Wegmeyer,Caitlynn C Sendra,Shannon Rowley
{"title":"Group differences in biographical inventories: A meta-analysis on the adverse impact potential of biodata.","authors":"Andrew P Tenbrink,Andrew B Speer,Lauren J Wegmeyer,Caitlynn C Sendra,Shannon Rowley","doi":"10.1037/apl0001260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to determine if biodata scale scores differ based on demographic group membership (i.e., gender, race, age) and to evaluate the contextual factors that amplify or mitigate these effects (e.g., construct domain, scoring method). Despite the popularity of biodata scales for personnel selection purposes, previous research findings do not provide clear evidence as to whether adverse impact is a serious concern. To address this gap, a meta-analysis of 43 studies (56 independent samples) was conducted, providing estimates of group differences across demographic groups (female-male, Black-White, Hispanic-White, Asian-White, and age) and relevant construct domains. The majority of biodata scale scores were found to exhibit small group differences across construct domains and demographic groups (≈75% had Cohen's d less than |.20|). Group differences were also relatively small when compared with other popular selection methods. When considered with previous research, these findings provide further support for the use of biodata scales in personnel selection scenarios. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","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/apl0001260","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: 0
Abstract
The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to determine if biodata scale scores differ based on demographic group membership (i.e., gender, race, age) and to evaluate the contextual factors that amplify or mitigate these effects (e.g., construct domain, scoring method). Despite the popularity of biodata scales for personnel selection purposes, previous research findings do not provide clear evidence as to whether adverse impact is a serious concern. To address this gap, a meta-analysis of 43 studies (56 independent samples) was conducted, providing estimates of group differences across demographic groups (female-male, Black-White, Hispanic-White, Asian-White, and age) and relevant construct domains. The majority of biodata scale scores were found to exhibit small group differences across construct domains and demographic groups (≈75% had Cohen's d less than |.20|). Group differences were also relatively small when compared with other popular selection methods. When considered with previous research, these findings provide further support for the use of biodata scales in personnel selection scenarios. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 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.