Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores: Evidence from large applicant samples

Christoph N. Herde; Filip Lievens; Duncan J. R. Jackson; Ali Shalfrooshan; Philip L. Roth

doi:10.1111/ijsa.12269

Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores: Evidence from large applicant samples

Christoph N. Herde, Filip Lievens, Duncan J. R. Jackson, Ali Shalfrooshan, Philip L. Roth

Human Resource Management

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

167 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

To promote diversity in organizations it is important to have accurate knowledge about subgroup differences associated with selection procedures. However, current estimates of subgroup differences in situational judgment tests (SJTs) are overwhelmingly based on range‐restricted incumbent samples that are downwardly biased. This study provides much‐needed applicant level estimates of SJT subgroup differences (N = 37,530). As a key finding, Black‐White differences (d = 0.66) were higher than in incumbent samples (d = 0.38). Overall, sex differences were small. Females scored higher for management jobs (d = −0.13) and males scored higher for administrative jobs (d = 0.15). By analyzing applicant samples that do not suffer from range restriction, this study adds knowledge about subgroup differences in SJTs.

Original language	English
Journal	International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Early online date	21 Oct 2019
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12269
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 21 Oct 2019

Access to Document

10.1111/ijsa.12269

Subgroup differences in situational_HERDE_Accepted17September2019Publishedonline21October2019_GREEN AAMAccepted author manuscript, 353 KB

Cite this

@article{8be861208d6242da8a12bc41fad79f2a,

title = "Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores: Evidence from large applicant samples",

abstract = "To promote diversity in organizations it is important to have accurate knowledge about subgroup differences associated with selection procedures. However, current estimates of subgroup differences in situational judgment tests (SJTs) are overwhelmingly based on range‐restricted incumbent samples that are downwardly biased. This study provides much‐needed applicant level estimates of SJT subgroup differences (N = 37,530). As a key finding, Black‐White differences (d = 0.66) were higher than in incumbent samples (d = 0.38). Overall, sex differences were small. Females scored higher for management jobs (d = −0.13) and males scored higher for administrative jobs (d = 0.15). By analyzing applicant samples that do not suffer from range restriction, this study adds knowledge about subgroup differences in SJTs.",

author = "Herde, {Christoph N.} and Filip Lievens and Jackson, {Duncan J. R.} and Ali Shalfrooshan and Roth, {Philip L.}",

year = "2019",

month = oct,

day = "21",

doi = "10.1111/ijsa.12269",

language = "English",

journal = "International Journal of Selection and Assessment",

issn = "0965-075X",

publisher = "Wiley",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores

T2 - Evidence from large applicant samples

AU - Herde, Christoph N.

AU - Lievens, Filip

AU - Jackson, Duncan J. R.

AU - Shalfrooshan, Ali

AU - Roth, Philip L.

PY - 2019/10/21

Y1 - 2019/10/21

N2 - To promote diversity in organizations it is important to have accurate knowledge about subgroup differences associated with selection procedures. However, current estimates of subgroup differences in situational judgment tests (SJTs) are overwhelmingly based on range‐restricted incumbent samples that are downwardly biased. This study provides much‐needed applicant level estimates of SJT subgroup differences (N = 37,530). As a key finding, Black‐White differences (d = 0.66) were higher than in incumbent samples (d = 0.38). Overall, sex differences were small. Females scored higher for management jobs (d = −0.13) and males scored higher for administrative jobs (d = 0.15). By analyzing applicant samples that do not suffer from range restriction, this study adds knowledge about subgroup differences in SJTs.

AB - To promote diversity in organizations it is important to have accurate knowledge about subgroup differences associated with selection procedures. However, current estimates of subgroup differences in situational judgment tests (SJTs) are overwhelmingly based on range‐restricted incumbent samples that are downwardly biased. This study provides much‐needed applicant level estimates of SJT subgroup differences (N = 37,530). As a key finding, Black‐White differences (d = 0.66) were higher than in incumbent samples (d = 0.38). Overall, sex differences were small. Females scored higher for management jobs (d = −0.13) and males scored higher for administrative jobs (d = 0.15). By analyzing applicant samples that do not suffer from range restriction, this study adds knowledge about subgroup differences in SJTs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074362315&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/ijsa.12269

DO - 10.1111/ijsa.12269

M3 - Article

SN - 0965-075X

JO - International Journal of Selection and Assessment

JF - International Journal of Selection and Assessment

ER -

Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores: Evidence from large applicant samples

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this