Test Bias, Differential Prediction, and a Revised Approach for Determining the Suitability of a Predictor in a Selection Context
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
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?
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).”
From An Omitted Variables Approach to Disentangling Differential Prediction in College Admissions (2026) · cites this paper as 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.
- ORCID
- Meade, Adam W.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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