The role of cognitive ability in the subgroup differences and incremental validity of assessment center exercises
Abstract
This study investigates the degree to which subgroup (Black‐White) mean differences on various assessment center exercises (e.g., in‐basket, role play) may be a function of the type of exercise employed; and furthermore, begins to explore why these different types of exercises result in subgroup differences. The sample consisted of 633 participants who completed a managerial assessment center that evaluated them on 14 ability dimensions across 7 different types of assessment exercises. In addition, each participant completed a cognitive ability measure. The results suggest that subgroup differences varied by type of assessment exercise; and furthermore that the subgroup difference appeared to be a function of the cognitive component of the exercise. Lastly, preliminary support is found that the validity of some of the assessment center exercises in predicting supervisor ratings of job performance is based, in part, on their cognitive component; however, evidence of incremental validity does exist.
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?
Goldstein, Yusko, Braverman, Smith, and Chung found that the cognitive complexity of an Assessment Center exercise predicted group differences, in line with Spearman's hypothesis.
“Goldstein, Yusko, Braverman, Smith, and Chung [9] tested whether the cognitive complexity of an AC exercise was a predictor of group differences, and their findings are in line with Spearman's hypothesis.”
From Spearman’s Hypothesis Tested on Black Adults: A Meta-Analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [9]
Cites
Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning
Sweller, J. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 · Cited by 11,048 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sackett, P. R., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J. E., & Kabin, M. B. (2001) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.56.4.302 · Cited by 387 · see citing works
Spearman’s Hypothesis Tested on Black Adults: A Meta-Analysis
Te Nijenhuis, J., & Van den Hoek, M. (2016) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence4020006 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- GOLDSTEIN, H. W., YUSKO, K. P., BRAVERMAN, E. P., SMITH, D. B., & CHUNG, B.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- Louisiana State University (US)
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- GOLDSTEIN, HAROLD W.
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 357-374
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W1973647277
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 4.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Personnel Psychology (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 › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- subgroup differences, black-white disparities, cognitive ability, incremental validity, in-basket exercise, role play, manager selection, job performance prediction, supervisor ratings
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
