Showing papers by "Robert E. Ployhart published in 2001"

Determinants, Detection and Amelioration of Adverse Impact in Personnel Selection Procedures: Issues, Evidence and Lessons Learned

Abstract: Mean subgroup (gender, ethnic/cultural, and age) differences are summarized across studies for several predictor domains – cognitive ability, personality and physical ability – at both broadly and more narrowly defined construct levels, with some surprising results. Research clearly indicates that the setting, the sample, the construct and the level of construct specificity can all, either individually or in combination, moderate the magnitude of differences between groups. Employers using tests in employment settings need to assess accurately the requirements of work. When the exact nature of the work is specified, the appropriate predictors may or may not have adverse impact against some groups. The possible causes and remedies for adverse impact (measurement method, culture, test coaching, test-taker perceptions, stereotype threat and criterion conceptualization) are also summarized. Each of these factors can contribute to subgroup differences, and some appear to contribute significantly to subgroup differences on cognitive ability tests, where Black–White mean differences are most pronounced. Statistical methods for detecting differential prediction, test fairness and construct equivalence are described and evaluated, as are statistical/mathematical strategies for reducing adverse impact (test-score banding and predictor/criterion weighting strategies).

Exploring relations between typical and maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality

Abstract: The study tests the distinction between typical and maximum criteria with ratings of transformational leadership performance, and examines whether the criterion-related validities of the five factor model differ for the two types of criteria. Using an East Asian military sample (n= 1,259) where multiple ratings of typical and maximum performance were obtained from different sources, we used structural equation modeling to test the typical/maximum performance distinction. Results found that typical and maximum performance are different latent constructs and that this distinction is present even after considering rating method factors (i.e., rater source, time). The importance of this distinction is shown by the fact that validities for the personality constructs were not equally predictive of both criteria: Openness was most predictive of maximum performance, Neuroticism was most predictive of typical performance, and Extroversion was predictive of both. By distinguishing typical from maximum performance constructs, relationships between personality and transformational leadership were found to be stronger than previous research suggested.