Determinants, Detection and Amelioration of Adverse Impact in Personnel Selection Procedures: Issues, Evidence and Lessons Learned
Abstract
Mean subgroup (gender, ethnic/cultural, and age) differences are summarized across studies for several predictor domains – cognitive ability, personality and physical ability – at both broadly and more narrowly defined construct levels, with some surprising results. Research clearly indicates that the setting, the sample, the construct and the level of construct specificity can all, either individually or in combination, moderate the magnitude of differences between groups. Employers using tests in employment settings need to assess accurately the requirements of work. When the exact nature of the work is specified, the appropriate predictors may or may not have adverse impact against some groups. The possible causes and remedies for adverse impact (measurement method, culture, test coaching, test‐taker perceptions, stereotype threat and criterion conceptualization) are also summarized. Each of these factors can contribute to subgroup differences, and some appear to contribute significantly to subgroup differences on cognitive ability tests, where Black–White mean differences are most pronounced. Statistical methods for detecting differential prediction, test fairness and construct equivalence are described and evaluated, as are statistical/mathematical strategies for reducing adverse impact (test‐score banding and predictor/criterion weighting strategies).
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?
Hough et al. (2001) reported that White people were typically more motivated to do well on tests, more likely to believe tests would influence their future relationship with the company, and had more positive perceptions of the criterion validity of ability tests; women and older people have greater test anxiety.
“White people were typically more motivated to do well on tests, were more likely to believe tests would influence their future relationship with the company that asked them to take them and had more positive perceptions of the criterion validity of ability tests.Women and older people have greater test anxiety.”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Hough et al., 2001
Hough et al. (2001) found that culture-free, nonverbal ability tests still showed modest group differences, and attempts to address the confound of ethnicity versus culture by building tests with Black cultural components found little success in overcoming differences.
“They also found evidence suggesting culture-free, nonverbal ability tests still showed modest group differences and that attempts to address the confound of ethnicity vs culture by building tests with Black cultural components found little success in overcoming differences.”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Hough et al., 2001
Hough et al. (2001) found little research on test coaching in occupational contexts; some studies showed potential in addressing group differences, but effects were modest and inconsistent, and findings were more consistent where test takers were less familiar with tests.
“Little research had been done in occupational contexts and whilst some studies demonstrated potential in addressing group differences, effects were modest and inconsistent.Findings did seem to be more consistent where test takers were less familiar with tests.”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Hough et al., 2001
Hough et al. (2001) suggested that reducing differences in test perceptions would have at best a small effect on test score differences.
“findings were sometimes inconsistent and typically suggested reducing differences in test perceptions would have, at best, a small effect on test score differences.”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Hough et al., 2001
Hough et al. (2001) reported that group differences in test performance lowered when motivation scores were partialled, test motivation had a moderating effect on test validity, and validity perceptions positively correlated with test performance.
“Group differences in test performance lowered when motivation scores were partialled, test motivation had a moderating effect on test validity and validity perceptions positive correlated with test performance.”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Hough et al., 2001
Hough et al. (2001) found that differential item functioning generally had a weak impact on overall test scores where it existed.
“DIF, whereby two individuals possessing identical levels of a latent trait but belonging to different groups have different chances of getting a given question correct, was generally found to have a weak impact on overall test scores where it existed (Hough et al., 2001).”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Hough et al., 2001
Hough et al. (2001) concluded that cultural differences have no more than a modest impact on test score differences.
“They concluded that cultural differences have no more than a modest impact on test score differences.”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Hough et al., 2001
Cites
Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224 · Cited by 21,995 · see citing works
THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYSIS
BARRICK, M. R., & MOUNT, M. K. (1991) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x · Cited by 8,689 · see citing works
Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797 · Cited by 8,181 · see citing works
How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement
Jensen, A. (1969) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.39.1.l3u15956627424k7 · Cited by 2,907 · see citing works
Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219 · Cited by 1,719 · see citing works
A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.
Block, J. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187 · Cited by 1,682 · see citing works
Organization of Data on Life-Span Development of Human Abilities
HORN, J. L. (1970) · Life-Span Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-293850-4.50022-4 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
The locus of adult intelligence: Knowledge, abilities, and nonability traits
Ackerman, P. L., & Rolfhus, E. L. (1999) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.14.2.314 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Chan, D. (1997) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.311 · Cited by 100 · cited 6× · see citing works
“1 Mean d based on the following studies: Chan and Schmitt (1997); Motowidlo, Dunnette, and Carter (1990);”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBlack-white bias in ‘cultural’ and ‘noncultural’ test items
Jensen, A. R., & McGurk, F. C. J. (1987) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(87)90029-8 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evidence for response bias as a source of error variance in applied assessment.
McGrath, R. E., Mitchell, M., Kim, B. H., & Hough, L. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0019216 · Cited by 282 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality
Del Giudice, M., Booth, T., & Irwing, P. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029265 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
GROUP DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY: META‐ANALYSES COMPARING FIVE U.S. RACIAL GROUPS
FOLDES, H. J., DUEHR, E. E., & ONES, D. S. (2008) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00123.x · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Stereotype threat in organizations: implications for equity and performance
Walton, G. M., Murphy, M. C., & Ryan, A. M. (2015) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111322 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Berry, C. M., Clark, M. A., & McClure, T. K. (2011) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0023222 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Shewach, O. R., Sackett, P. R., & Quint, S. (2019) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000420 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Local Law 144: A Critical Analysis of Regression Metrics
Filippi, G., Zannone, S., Hilliard, A., & Koshiyama, A. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.04119 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review
Cuppello, S., Zibarras, L. D., & Corr, P. J. (2025) · Trends in Psychology · doi:10.1007/s43076-025-00504-5
- Authors
- Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E.
- Venue
- International Journal of Selection and Assessment
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 152-194
- ISSN
- 0965-075X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2389
- OpenAlex
- W2092931035
- Cited by
- 429
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 27
- FWCI
- 12.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Selection and Assessment (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- adverse impact, personnel selection, subgroup differences, gender differences, age differences, cognitive ability tests, personality tests, physical ability tests, test fairness, construct equivalence, stereotype threat, criteria weighting, differential prediction, black-white disparities
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