Exploring Black-White subgroup differences of managerial competencies
Abstract
This study investigates whether different job‐relevant competencies vary in terms of Black‐White subgroup differences exhibited. There were 633 participants (545 Whites, 88 Blacks) who completed a managerial assessment center that evaluated 13 competency dimensions across 8 assessment exercises. Participants also completed a cognitive ability test. The results suggest that subgroup differences vary by the content domain of the competency. As predicted, significant subgroup differences emerged for a majority of the more cognitively loaded competencies (e.g., judgment) while nonsignificant differences were associated with a majority of the less cognitively loaded competencies (e.g., human relations). Furthermore, when cognitive ability was controlled, 12 of 13 competency scores demonstrated incremental validity in predicting supervisory job performance ratings. In addition, competencies with greater cognitive load tended to more strongly predict cognitive aspects of job performance as compared to noncognitive aspects. However, competencies with less cognitive load did not differentially predict cognitive and noncognitive aspects of job performance.
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, and Nicolopoulos concluded that clear group differences emerged for more cognitively-loaded managerial competencies and much smaller differences for less cognitively-loaded competencies.
“Goldstein, Yusko, and Nicolopoulos [10] concluded that clear group differences emerged for a majority of more cognitively-loaded managerial competencies, such as judgment, whereas much smaller differences were associated with the majority of the less cognitively-loaded competencies, such as human relations.”
From Spearman’s Hypothesis Tested on Black Adults: A Meta-Analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [10]
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
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., & NICOLOPOULOS, V.
- Affiliations
- Baruch College (US)
- Corresponding author
- GOLDSTEIN, HAROLD W.
- ORCID
- GOLDSTEIN, HAROLD W.
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-12
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 783-807
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W2124923642
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.00
- 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 › Psychology › Social Psychology › Competency Development and Evaluation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- managerial competencies, assessment centers, cognitive ability, cognitive load, incremental validity, job performance prediction
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