Using Practice Employment Tests in Recruitment and Selection to Equalize Preparation Opportunities

Abstract

Human resources (HR) managers struggle to manage the adverse impact-validity tradeoff where some of the most predictive and affordable hiring procedures, such as mental ability tests, often result in lower hiring rates for racioethnic minority subgroups of candidates, thus creating legal risks due to anti-discrimination laws. In this study, we examine whether employer-sponsored practice testing will reduce subgroup differences in test performance by offering an equalizing preparation opportunity framework based on the tenant of access, including access to information and opportunities to perform. In a large diverse sample in an operational selection context (N_{practice test} = 29,626; N_{actual test} = 18,408; N_both = 5078), we found that candidates who took the practice test scored higher on the actual tests than those who did not. All candidates benefitted by receiving an accurate estimate of passing the actual test and increasing their likelihood of applying. Further, racioethnic minorities realized greater score gains than racial non-minorities, thereby reducing subgroup mean differences and subsequent adverse impact. The results were supportive for all major racioethnic minority subgroups (Asians, Blacks or African Americans, and Hispanics), and effect sizes were meaningfully large. Finally, we examined differences in other preparation tactics (e.g., gaining additional experience, using study guides) and found that racioethnic minorities were likely to use some tactics more than racioethnic non-minorities, but not the most predictive tactics. We conclude that HR managers should consider equalizing preparation opportunities, specifically practice testing, to help address the adverse impact-validity tradeoff by reducing impact without abandoning valid employment tests.