Understanding subgroup differences with general mental ability tests in employment selection: Exploring socio‐cultural factors across inter‐generational groups
Abstract
In employment selection, general mental ability (GMA) tests predict training and job performance but also lead to subgroup differences which in turn can produce adverse impact against minority groups. Although researchers have explored genetic, developmental, and environmental explanations for ethnic group differences, few studies have explored socio‐cultural factors comparing immigrant and non‐immigrant job applicants. Given that many ethnic job applicants may also be immigrants, understanding these factors can provide insight into GMA test score differences. The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of individual and socio‐cultural factors on GMA test scores with immigrant and non‐immigrant bus driver applicants. This is the first study of its kind to our knowledge that has attempted to disentangle the effects of socio‐cultural factors from race/ethnicity in the study of subgroup differences. Incorporating these variables between non‐visible minority and minority groups accounted for considerable variance in GMA test scores across groups. The implications of focusing on socio‐cultural variables to enhance our understanding of subgroup differences are discussed. Our results specifically suggest that practitioners attend to the issue of the intersecting grounds of potential discrimination when using GMA tests in personnel selection.
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?
Substantive accounts of group differences, such as genetic or socio-cultural accounts, are based on biological or environmental factors that are unlikely to be mitigated through changes to testing procedures.
“Substantive accounts, such as genetic group differences (e.g., Warne, 2021) or socio-cultural differences (e.g., Hausdorf & Robie, 2018), are based on biological or environmental factors that are unlikely to be mitigated through changes to testing procedures.”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Hausdorf & Robie, 2018
Ethnic differences were significantly reduced when controlling for years of education, language proficiency and generational immigration status.
“Indeed, ethnic differences were significantly reduced when controlling for years of education, language proficiency and genera-tional immigration status (Hausdorf & Robie, 2018).”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Hausdorf & Robie, 2018
Cites
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
Brown, R. P., & Day, E. A. (2006) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.979 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true?
Gottfredson, L. S. (2005) · Psychology, Public Policy, and Law · doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.311 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
- Hausdorf, P. A., & Robie, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Guelph (CA)
- Wilfrid Laurier University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Hausdorf, Peter A.
- Venue
- International Journal of Selection and Assessment
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-12
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2-4
- Pages
- 176-190
- ISSN
- 0965-075X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2389
- OpenAlex
- W2908998834
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Selection and Assessment (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 › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- subgroup differences, adverse impact, sociocultural factors, race and ethnicity, intersectionality, personnel selection, test score differences
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