Influence of Proctored Remote Versus Onsite Assessment on Candidate Scores, Assessment Types, Subgroup Differences, and Fairness Reactions

As more organizations move to remote hiring assessments, important questions emerge as to the effects on scores, racioethnic, and gender subgroup differences, and candidate reactions. We compare scores of candidates assessed remotely under proctored conditions (N = 902) versus onsite (N = 891) in an actual selection context in the same organization, in the same time period, and on the same cognitive ability tests, case exercises, and structured interviews. Controlling for job, there were no differences for cognitive ability tests or case exercises in the remote environment, but higher scores for structured interviews, leading to a slightly higher total score for all assessments combined and a 5% increase in the overall passing rate. Within groups, Hispanic or Latino candidates performed better on the remote cognitive ability test compared with Hispanic or Latino candidates onsite, while Asian candidates performed better remotely for the case exercise. All subgroups performed better on the remote structured interview compared with their onsite counterparts. No between-group differences emerged by racioethnicity, but women outperformed men on the remote cognitive ability test compared to onsite. Candidate fairness reactions did not differ by test environment for any assessments or subgroups. We conclude that: (1) remote proctored assessments will not create lower overall passing rates (i.e., fewer candidates for hire); (2) differences in remote assessment scores may depend on the type of assessment, with the greatest positive differences for structured interviews; (3) remote assessments do not disadvantage racioethnic minority candidates or candidates overall; and (4) remote assessments do not reduce candidate fairness reactions.