Cited by 429Psychometric Methodologies and TestingSocial and Intergroup PsychologyCognitive Abilities and Testing

Determinants, Detection and Amelioration of Adverse Impact in Personnel Selection Procedures: Issues, Evidence and Lessons Learned

Hough, Leatta M., Oswald, Frederick L., Ployhart, Robert E.·2001·International Journal of Selection and Assessment

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

Crossref · 10.1111/1468-2389.00171

Cites

10 of 10 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.

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.”
  • 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.”
  • 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.”
  • 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.”
  • 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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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