Cited by 48Psychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and AssessmentEmployer Branding and e-HRM

Test Bias, Differential Prediction, and a Revised Approach for Determining the Suitability of a Predictor in a Selection Context

Meade, Adam W., Fetzer, Michael·2009·Organizational Research Methods

Abstract

The most commonly used and accepted model of assessing bias in a selection context is that proposed by Cleary in which predictor-criterion regression lines are tested for both slope and intercept equality. With this approach, any difference in intercepts or slopes is considered an indication of bias. We argue that differing regression lines intercepts is indicative of differential prediction but not test bias. We describe several fundamentally different potential causes of differences in groups’ regression line intercepts, many of which are unrelated to test properties. We argue that differential prediction because of such sources should not preclude the use of the test in selection contexts. We propose a new procedure to potentially identify the source of regression line differences and illustrate this framework using a job incumbent sample.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094428109331487

Cites

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?

  • The results do not imply that these effects should be reduced to zero as proof of unbiased predictions, since intercept differences can reflect other artifacts.

    “At the same time, we caution that our results do not imply that these effects should be reduced to zero as proof of unbiased predictions, since intercept differences can reflect other artifacts (Meade & Fetzer, 2009).”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 65 · Cited by 48

Authors
Meade, A. W., & Fetzer, M.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • PreVisor
Corresponding author
Meade, Adam W.
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Published
2009-02-06
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
738-761
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
OpenAlex
W2108148387
Cited by
48
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
FWCI
2.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Organizational Research Methods (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
Keywords
test bias, differential prediction, selection testing, job incumbents

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