Andrew B Speer,Louis Hickman,Q Chelsea Song,James Perrotta,Rick R Jacobs,Dawn Lambert
{"title":"解决人才选择中的多样性-效度困境:揭示多重惩罚优化回归在不同测试场景下的影响。","authors":"Andrew B Speer,Louis Hickman,Q Chelsea Song,James Perrotta,Rick R Jacobs,Dawn Lambert","doi":"10.1037/apl0001282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Researchers and practitioners have long grappled with balancing the goals of selecting a high-performing and diverse workforce. Recently, Rottman et al. (2023) proposed a new approach to address these goals, which we refer to as multipenalty optimized regression (MOR). MOR extends ridge regression by adding a penalty term that minimizes group differences when fitting the model. Although MOR has shown potential, there are unknowns, including whether MOR is consistently effective in typical selection settings, what conditions impact MOR effectiveness, and whether MOR performs similarly to other multiobjective optimization methods, such as Pareto-normal boundary intersection (Pareto-NBI). Using Monte Carlo simulations (Study 1), we investigated MOR effectiveness and compared it with traditional scoring methods (ridge regression, ordinary least squares, unit weighting) and Pareto-NBI across several factors: (a) number of scales (and corresponding items), (b) operationalization (item or scale), (c) magnitude of predictor criterion-related validity, (d) magnitude of predictor subgroup differences, (e) calibration sample size, and (f) proportion of minorities in the calibration sample. Compared with traditional methods, MOR frequently produced solutions with comparable criterion-related validity but with consistently less adverse impact risk. Pareto-NBI and MOR were similarly effective in performing dual optimization, though MOR was more effective at very small sample sizes (e.g., N < 150) with item-level scoring. Pareto-NBI also became computationally intensive with many predictors, making MOR better suited for big data. Finally, in Study 2, MOR exhibited similar criterion-related validity and lower adverse impact risk relative to other methods across six real-life assessment contexts. We provide recommendations for using multiobjective optimization methods in personnel selection. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":"137 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addressing the diversity-validity dilemma in personnel selection: Unraveling the impact of multipenalty optimized regression in varied testing scenarios.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew B Speer,Louis Hickman,Q Chelsea Song,James Perrotta,Rick R Jacobs,Dawn Lambert\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/apl0001282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Researchers and practitioners have long grappled with balancing the goals of selecting a high-performing and diverse workforce. Recently, Rottman et al. (2023) proposed a new approach to address these goals, which we refer to as multipenalty optimized regression (MOR). MOR extends ridge regression by adding a penalty term that minimizes group differences when fitting the model. Although MOR has shown potential, there are unknowns, including whether MOR is consistently effective in typical selection settings, what conditions impact MOR effectiveness, and whether MOR performs similarly to other multiobjective optimization methods, such as Pareto-normal boundary intersection (Pareto-NBI). Using Monte Carlo simulations (Study 1), we investigated MOR effectiveness and compared it with traditional scoring methods (ridge regression, ordinary least squares, unit weighting) and Pareto-NBI across several factors: (a) number of scales (and corresponding items), (b) operationalization (item or scale), (c) magnitude of predictor criterion-related validity, (d) magnitude of predictor subgroup differences, (e) calibration sample size, and (f) proportion of minorities in the calibration sample. Compared with traditional methods, MOR frequently produced solutions with comparable criterion-related validity but with consistently less adverse impact risk. Pareto-NBI and MOR were similarly effective in performing dual optimization, though MOR was more effective at very small sample sizes (e.g., N < 150) with item-level scoring. Pareto-NBI also became computationally intensive with many predictors, making MOR better suited for big data. Finally, in Study 2, MOR exhibited similar criterion-related validity and lower adverse impact risk relative to other methods across six real-life assessment contexts. We provide recommendations for using multiobjective optimization methods in personnel selection. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":15135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"volume\":\"137 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-05\",\"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/apl0001282\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001282","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
Addressing the diversity-validity dilemma in personnel selection: Unraveling the impact of multipenalty optimized regression in varied testing scenarios.
Researchers and practitioners have long grappled with balancing the goals of selecting a high-performing and diverse workforce. Recently, Rottman et al. (2023) proposed a new approach to address these goals, which we refer to as multipenalty optimized regression (MOR). MOR extends ridge regression by adding a penalty term that minimizes group differences when fitting the model. Although MOR has shown potential, there are unknowns, including whether MOR is consistently effective in typical selection settings, what conditions impact MOR effectiveness, and whether MOR performs similarly to other multiobjective optimization methods, such as Pareto-normal boundary intersection (Pareto-NBI). Using Monte Carlo simulations (Study 1), we investigated MOR effectiveness and compared it with traditional scoring methods (ridge regression, ordinary least squares, unit weighting) and Pareto-NBI across several factors: (a) number of scales (and corresponding items), (b) operationalization (item or scale), (c) magnitude of predictor criterion-related validity, (d) magnitude of predictor subgroup differences, (e) calibration sample size, and (f) proportion of minorities in the calibration sample. Compared with traditional methods, MOR frequently produced solutions with comparable criterion-related validity but with consistently less adverse impact risk. Pareto-NBI and MOR were similarly effective in performing dual optimization, though MOR was more effective at very small sample sizes (e.g., N < 150) with item-level scoring. Pareto-NBI also became computationally intensive with many predictors, making MOR better suited for big data. Finally, in Study 2, MOR exhibited similar criterion-related validity and lower adverse impact risk relative to other methods across six real-life assessment contexts. We provide recommendations for using multiobjective optimization methods in personnel selection. (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.