Underprediction of performance for US minorities using cognitive ability measures
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine moderating effects of employee race on ability–performance relationships in a well‐controlled study. Design/methodology/approach The cognitive ability of a large sample (n = 972) of employees in a garment manufacturing organization was measured using a well‐validated instrument (the General Aptitude Test Battery). Relationships to objective measures of performance were assessed for differential validity. Findings Contrary to expectations, the correlation between ability and performance was found to be stronger for black employees than white employees. This results in underprediction of performance for black job applicants if a common cutoff score is used. Research limitations/implications The near demise of research on differential validity may be premature. Subgroup differences are more likely to be detected when appropriate research designs are used. Practical implications Organizations may risk moral and legal problems if they use selection procedures without adequately addressing potential problems with differential validity. Originality/value This paper stimulates interest in examining potential race‐based differential validity effects when examining organizational selection procedures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other authors have found that CAT performance was less predictive of job performance.
“and less predictive of job performance (Gardner & Deadrick, 2008, 2012).”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Gardner & Deadrick, 2008
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 41 · Cited by 11
- Authors
- Gardner, D., & Deadrick, D. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Colorado Springs (US)
- Old Dominion University (US)
- ORCID
- Gardner, Donald
- Venue
- Equal Opportunities International
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2008-06-27
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 455-464
- ISSN
- 0261-0159 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2082603521
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Equal Opportunities International (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
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
- Keywords
- differential validity, race, Black workers, White employees, cognitive ability testing, General Aptitude Test Battery, selection methods, minority workers, apparel industry
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