Advanced search
Add to list

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

Author
Organization
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 overwhelm‐ingly 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 restric‐tion, this study adds knowledge about subgroup differences in SJTs.
Keywords
Management of Technology and Innovation, Applied Psychology, Strategy and Management, General Business, Management and Accounting, General Psychology

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Herde, Christoph, et al. “Subgroup Differences in Situational Judgment Test Scores: Evidence from Large Applicant Samples.” International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2019.
APA
Herde, C., Lievens, F., Jackson, D. J. R., Shalfrooshan, A., & Roth, P. L. (2019). Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores: Evidence from large applicant samples. International Journal of Selection and Assessment.
Chicago author-date
Herde, Christoph, Filip Lievens, Duncan J. R. Jackson, Ali Shalfrooshan, and Philip L. Roth. 2019. “Subgroup Differences in Situational Judgment Test Scores: Evidence from Large Applicant Samples.” International Journal of Selection and Assessment.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Herde, Christoph, Filip Lievens, Duncan J. R. Jackson, Ali Shalfrooshan, and Philip L. Roth. 2019. “Subgroup Differences in Situational Judgment Test Scores: Evidence from Large Applicant Samples.” International Journal of Selection and Assessment.
Vancouver
1.
Herde C, Lievens F, Jackson DJR, Shalfrooshan A, Roth PL. Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores: Evidence from large applicant samples. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 2019;
IEEE
[1]
C. Herde, F. Lievens, D. J. R. Jackson, A. Shalfrooshan, and P. L. Roth, “Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores: Evidence from large applicant samples,” International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2019.
@article{8634148,
  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 overwhelm‐ingly 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 restric‐tion, this study adds knowledge about subgroup differences in SJTs.},
  author       = {Herde, Christoph and Lievens, Filip and Jackson, Duncan J. R. and Shalfrooshan, Ali and Roth, Philip L.},
  issn         = {0965-075X},
  journal      = {International Journal of Selection and Assessment},
  keywords     = {Management of Technology and Innovation,Applied Psychology,Strategy and Management,General Business,Management and Accounting,General Psychology},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {10},
  title        = {Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores: Evidence from large applicant samples},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12269},
  year         = {2019},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric