Cited by 5Cognitive Abilities and TestingPsychometric Methodologies and TestingSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Understanding subgroup differences with general mental ability tests in employment selection: Exploring socio‐cultural factors across inter‐generational groups

Hausdorf, Peter A., Robie, Chet·2018·International Journal of Selection and Assessment

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

Crossref · 10.1111/ijsa.12226

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • 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.”
  • 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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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