Cited by 99Cognitive Abilities and TestingPsychometric Methodologies and TestingMedical Education and Admissions

Racial/ethnic differences in the criterion-related validity of cognitive ability tests: A qualitative and quantitative review.

Berry, Christopher M., Clark, Malissa A., McClure, Tara K.·2011·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

The correlation between cognitive ability test scores and performance was separately meta-analyzed for Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White racial/ethnic subgroups. Compared to the average White observed correlation ( = .33, N = 903,779), average correlations were lower for Black samples ( = .24, N = 112,194) and Hispanic samples ( = .30, N = 51,205) and approximately equal for Asian samples ( = .33, N = 80,705). Despite some moderating effects (e.g., type of performance criterion, decade of data collection, job complexity), validity favored White over Black and Hispanic test takers in almost all conditions that included a sizable number of studies. Black-White validity comparisons were possible both across and within the 3 broad domains that use cognitive ability tests for high-stakes selection and placement: civilian employment, educational admissions, and the military. The trend of lower Black validity was repeated in each domain; however, average Black-White validity differences were largest in military studies and smallest in educational and employment studies. Further investigation of the reasons for these validity differences is warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0023222

Cites

108 of 108 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berry, C. M., Clark, M. A., & McClure, T. K.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Auburn University (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
2011-09
Volume
96
Issue
5
Pages
881-906
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W2038919182
Cited by
99
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • 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
Keywords
criterion validity, cognitive ability tests, racial and ethnic differences, military personnel selection, civilian employment, job complexity, performance standards
MeSH terms
Aptitude Tests, Cognition, Ethnicity, Humans, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Racial Groups

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