Race‐Based Differential Prediction in Air Force Technical Training Programs
Abstract
Bayesian Johnson‐Neyman methodology was used to investigate differential prediction by race in United States Air Force technical training programs. Meaningful Johnson‐Neyman regions of differences were found in eight of nine comparisons. In all nine training courses the regressions for blacks were flatter than for whites and the race‐differentiated regression lines intersected within the range of predictor test scores. In six cases the cut‐score for course qualification was within the Johnson‐Neyman region, and in every case the bias was negative for blacks. It is noted that if the cut score had been set substantially higher the bias would have been positive for blacks in all cases. This analysis may explain why earlier studies that averaged bias across the predictor distribution yielded mixed results. It is hypothesized that the consistent results obtained here are a consequence of the lower predictability found in the black subpopulation.
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?
Some have found modest support for underprediction of Black training performance.
“Some have found modest support for underprediction of Black training performance (Houston, 1987;Te Nijenhuis & Van der Flier, 2000).”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Houston, 1987
Cited by
Sorted by citations
VAN IDDEKINGE, C. H., & PLOYHART, R. E. (2008) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00133.x · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Berry, C. M., Clark, M. A., & McClure, T. K. (2011) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0023222 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Differential Prediction and the Use of Multiple Predictors: The Omitted Variables Problem.
Sackett, P. R., Laczo, R. M., & Lippe, Z. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1046 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
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
- Houston, W. M., & Noviek, M. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Iowa (US)
- Corresponding author
- Houston, Walter M.
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Measurement
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1987-12
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 309-320
- ISSN
- 0022-0655 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-3984
- OpenAlex
- W2049111406
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Educational Measurement (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
- Keywords
- predictive bias, cut-off values, technical training programs, United States Air Force, 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