Cited by 387Psychometric Methodologies and TestingMedical Education and AdmissionsCognitive Abilities and Testing

High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education: Prospects in a post-affirmative-action world.

Sackett, Paul R., Schmitt, Neal, Ellingson, Jill E., Kabin, Melissa B.·2001·American Psychologist

Abstract

Cognitively loaded tests of knowledge, skill, and ability often contribute to decisions regarding education, jobs, licensure, or certification. Users of such tests often face difficult choices when trying to optimize both the performance and ethnic diversity of chosen individuals. The authors describe the nature of this quandary, review research on different strategies to address it, and recommend using selection materials that assess the full range of relevant attributes using a format that minimizes verbal content as much as is consistent with the outcome one is trying to achieve. They also recommend the use of test preparation, face-valid assessments, and the consideration of relevant job or life experiences. Regardless of the strategy adopted, it is unreasonable to expect that one can maximize both the performance and ethnic diversity of selected individuals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0003-066x.56.4.302

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Harmon, 1991, Fairness in testing: Are science education assessments biased?, 31
  2. Jaeger, 1996a, Conclusions on the technical measurement quality of the 1995-1996 operational version of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards' Early Childhood Generalist Assessment.
  3. Jaeger, 1996b, Conclusions on the technical measurement quality of the 1995-1996 operational version of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards' Middle Childhood Generalist Assessment.
  4. 10.1037/0735-7028.28.5.486 · DOI
  5. Schmidt, 1979, The behavioral consistency method of unassembled examining (TM-79-21).
  6. 10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.490 · DOI
  7. Schmitt, 1996, Subgroup differences associated with different measures of some job-relevant constructs., Vol. 11, 115
  8. Steele, 1999, Thin ice: "Stereotype threat" and Black college students., Atlantic Monthly, 284, 44
  9. Stokes, 1994, Biodata handbook.
  10. 10.1037/0003-066X.53.6.679 · DOI
  11. 10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.113 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sackett, P. R., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J. E., & Kabin, M. B.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
American Psychologist
Published
2001-04
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
302-318
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
OpenAlex
W2049089006
Cited by
387
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 30
FWCI
34.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
high-stakes testing, affirmative action, ethnic diversity, selection decisions, employment testing, credentialing, university admission, test format, verbal content, exam preparation, face validity, work experience
MeSH terms
Aptitude Tests, Credentialing, Education, Employment, Humans, Cultural Diversity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review