Racial and ethnic bias in psychological tests: Divergent implications of two definitions of test bias.

Examines the 2 most widely accepted definitions of unfair test bias. A. Cleary in 1968 defined unfair test bias in terms of consistent under- or overprediction of actual performance levels of minority or majority groups. R. L. Thorndike's 1971 definition holds that a test is unfairly biased whenever the difference between the minority and majority groups is greater on the test than on actual performance. These 2 definitions, which superficially appear to be similar, are shown to be very different in their implications for minority selection. It is demonstrated that whenever test validity is less than perfect and mean majority criterion performance is higher than that of the minority group, Thorndike's definition leads to acceptance of a larger percentage of minority group members than does the Cleary definition. A review and reanalysis of published research on test bias suggests that most conventional test usages are unbiased by Cleary's definition but unfair by Thorndike's criteria. Advantages and disadvantages of both concepts of unfair test bias are discussed. (32 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An analysis and evaluation of test and item bias in the prediction context.

Presents a perspective on test and item bias in predicting the performance of individuals in majority and minority groups. It is suggested that a difference between groups in the slope of the regression of the criterion on a test used for prediction represents bias that can frequently be corrected. Given a criterion with adequate measurement properties, the selection of items with essentially equivalent discrimination indices is expected to produce approximately parallel slopes. Accordingly, items having different discrimination indices are themselves biased. Intercept bias, on the other hand, is essentially not under the control of the test constructor. It is argued that the goal of producing a test without intercept bias is an unreasonable one. These problems are illustrated by factor models of intercept bias. It is concluded that relative differences in item-difficulty levels from group to group, given items with adequate discrimination indices, should not be labeled as bias. Such items are not automatic candidates for discard. (13 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Adverse impact and predictive efficiency of various predictor combinations.

The effects of number of predictors, predictor intercorrelations, validity, and level of subgroup difference on composite validity, adverse impact ratios, and mean subgroup difference associated with various predictor composites, including and excluding a "high impact" ability measure, were assessed. The size of subgroup differences is substantially smaller when low-impact predictors are combined with a high-impact predictor, but hiring ratios for majority and minority groups still indicate a prima facie case of discrimination, using the fourth-fifths rule for most predictor-criterion combinations. However, the validity of a composite of alternate predictors and cognitive ability may exceed the validity of cognitive ability alone and reduce the size of subgroup differences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cultural fairness in aptitude testing revisited: A cross-cultural parallel.

Explored some interesting parallels between the cultural fairness controversy and related research in the US, which peaked in the late 1970s, and the ongoing debate and empirical research on test fairness in a cultural site different from the US—namely, Israel. Specifically, I tested for cultural fairness and equity of various scholastic aptitude exams routinely used in Israel for prediction and selection purposes among school-age pupils and college applicants alike. In the 1st study I tested for differential predictive validity in verbal and nonverbal aptitude test scores, for a representative sample of middle-class majority (n?=?144) and lower-class minority (n?=?144) Israeli schoolchildren, with grade point average (GPA) as criterion. In the 2nd study I tested the degree of differential validity in college admissions aptitude test scores, as predictors, for 824 Jewish majority and 364 Arab minority students enrolled at a major Israeli campus; 1st-year GPA served as the criterion measure. Overall, the results of both studies lend cross-cultural generalizability to much previous research conducted in the US, providing some evidence of intercept bias; test scores were overpredictive of the scores of minority group students. However, there was little evidence of predictive slope bias by sociocultural group. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Traditional tests and job simulations: Minority and majority performance and test validities.

Performance of 565 minority and 414 majority job applicants on traditional paper-and-pencil tests and on a telephone simulation that measured similar constructs was assessed. Models of the measurement characteristics of these 2 test batteries indicated larger subgroup mean differences on the traditional tests than on the simulation. Correlations between traditional tests were lower in the majority sample than in the minority sample, and the variance of the minority candidates' scores on the traditional tests was much larger than the variance of majority applicants' scores on the same measures. The validity of the simulation was lower than the validity of the traditional tests. This study replicates previous laboratory research that has indicated smaller subgroup differences on simulations than on paper-and-pencil tests and extends this research by providing evidence of the relative validity of these 2 types of measures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Majority and minority influence in group negotiation: The moderating effects of social motivation and decision rules.

In organizational groups, often a majority has aligned preferences that oppose those of a minority. Although such situations may give rise to majority coalitions that exclude the minority or to minorities blocking unfavorable agreements, structural and motivational factors may stimulate groups to engage in integrative negotiation, leading to collectively beneficial agreements. An experiment with 97 3-person groups was designed to test hypotheses about the interactions among decision rule, the majority's social motivation, and the minority's social motivation. Results showed that under unanimity rule, minority members block decisions, thus harming the group, but only when the minority has proself motivation. Under majority rule, majority members coalesce at the minority's expense, but only when the majority has a proself motivation. Implications for negotiation research and group decision making are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Intergroup bias by defensive and offensive groups in majority and minority conditions.

When the legitimacy of an opinion group surpasses that of the opposite group, the burden of legitimation shifts from the former to the latter, rendering the prior consensual order of social identities insecure. The insecurity has a negative valence for the burdened, defensive group and a positive valence for the ascendant, offensive group. We predicted that the in-group bias of the defensive group would be smaller and that of the offensive group would be greater in the majority than in the minority situation. The predicted interaction effect was significant; however, it was asymmetrical in that the simple effects of majority–minority were significant only in the offensive group (Experiment 1). These results were replicated in Experiment 2. In both experiments, bias was smaller in the defensive than in the offensive group. In Experiment 3 we manipulated defensiveness by laying the burden of legitimation on one group. Regardless of which opinion group was burdened, less bias was predictably shown in the majority than in the minority condition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effect of number of majority defectors on minority influence.

Two experiments using the Twelve Angry Men (R. Rose, 1954) paradigm were conducted to investigate the effect of the number of majority defectors on the minority. Participants were more influenced by the minority when it acquired majority defectors than when it did not, and the number of majority defectors made a difference. In both experiments, the minority's influence progressively increased from 1 to 2 defectors until the 3rd defector, at which point a ceiling of influence was reached. The results also showed that when the minority could initially acquire only a single defector it had to acquire an additional 5 majority defectors to significantly increase its effectiveness. These results are discussed in the context of B. Latané and S. Wolfe's (1981) social impact theory and S. Tanford and S. Penrod's (1984) social influence model. Implications for group psychotherapy are mentioned. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Individuality and group formation: The role of independence and differentiation.

This research examined the interplay of group formation and individualization processes with a particular emphasis on minority and majority groups. First, a 2-component theory of individuality that distinguishes between individuality as independence and as differentiation from other people was presented, tested, and cross-validated in 2 questionnaire studies. Next, a pilot experiment provided first support for the working assumption that the salience of the differentiation or independence components of individuality differentially affect minority and majority group formation. Finally, the main experiment demonstrated that these individuality effects on minority and majority group formation are due largely to a differential orientation toward either intergroup or intragroup comparisons. This experiment also uncovered a unique effect of relative in-group size, but this effect was limited to similarity-based group formation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The minority slowness effect: Subtle inhibitions in the expression of views not shared by others.

Five studies revealed that people who hold the minority opinion express that opinion less quickly than people who hold the majority opinion. The difference in speed in the expression of the minority and majority opinions grew as the difference in the size of the minority and majority grew. Also, those with the minority view were particularly slow when they assumed the majority to be large, whereas the opposite was true for those with the majority view. The minority slowness effect was not found to be linked to attitude strength, nor was it influenced by anticipated public disclosure of the attitude. The effect is discussed in the context of implicit conformity pressures and the limited buffering effect of false consensus assumptions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Statistical definitions of test validity for minority groups.

Considers the problem of deciding when a selection test is invalid for members of a minority group. There is both a strong empirical and theoretical basis for rejecting the choice of zero correlation between test and criterion as an appropriate null hypothesis. The choice typically requires that the population value of the correlation be higher in the minority group than in the majority group. The direct comparison of correlations in minority and majority samples is recommended. Only when the minority correlation is significantly lower and the confidence limits around that correlation include no useful levels of the relationship, should the correlation be considered essentially zero. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Fast color grouping and slow color inhibition: Evidence for distinct temporal windows for separate processes in preview search.

The authors report 4 experiments that examined color grouping and negative carryover effects in preview search via a probe detection task (J. J. Braithwaite, G. W. Humphreys, & J. Hodsoll, 2003). In Experiment 1, there was evidence of a negative color carryover from the preview to new items, using both search and probe detection measures. There was also a negative bias against probes on old items that carried the majority color in the preview. With a short preview duration (150 ms) carryover effects to new items were greatly reduced, but probe detection remained biased against the majority color in the old items. Experiments 2 and 4 showed that the color bias effects on old items could be reduced when these items had to be prioritized relative to being ignored. Experiment 3 tested and rejected the idea that variations in the probability of whether minority or majority colors were probed were crucial. These results show that the time course of color carryover effects can be separated from effects of early color grouping in the preview display: Color grouping is fast, and inhibitory color carryover effects are slow. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Employment test validation for minority and nonminority telephone company service representatives.

Describes an experiment with 107 minority (black) and 193 nonminority newly-hired telephone company service representatives. Ss were given tests during employment related to specially-developed proficiency criteria, including (a) an adaption of the Cooperative School and College Ability Tests, (b) 5 clerical aptitude tests, and (c) a role-playing interview related to employee tasks. Generally, individual and composite test and criterion averages obtained by the 2 groups differed significantly, but validity coefficients were comparable. Regression equation comparisons indicate that common test standards could be used to evaluate minority and nonminority job applicants. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The WISC-R and internal evidence of test bias with minority groups.

Judgment of test bias can be made on the basis of a number of criteria. This study examines the evidence on the cultural bias of the WISC-R for Anglo-American, Black, and Mexican-American children. The performance of 1,050 children aged 5–11 yrs on the internal criteria of reliability and a number of order-of-item-difficulty measures was assessed. Minority group Ss responded to the test in the same general way as did Anglo-American Ss, and there was no clear pattern to the items on the test that were more difficult for minority Ss. Thus, the WISC-R appears to be nonbiased for minority group children. Explanations other than specific item content should be sought for the observed discrepancy between majority group and minority group IQ test performance. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Responses to issues raised about validity, bias, and fairness in high-stakes testing.

We are pleased that our article (see record 2008-05553-001) prompted this series of four commentaries and that we have this opportunity to respond. We address each in turn. Duckworth (see record 2009-06923-012) and Kaufman and Agars (see record 2009-06923-013) discussed, respectively, two broad issues concerning the validity of selection systems, namely, the expansion of the predictor domain to include noncognitive predictors of performance and the expansion of the criterion domain to include additional criteria (e.g., creativity). We agree with these arguments, noting that they expand on points made in our original article. Wicherts and Millsap (see record 2009-06923-014) rightly noted the distinction between measurement bias and predictive bias and the fact that a finding of no predictive bias does not rule out the possibility that measurement bias still exists. They took issue with a statement we cited from Cullen, Hardison, and Sackett (2004) that if motivational mechanisms, such as stereotype threat, result in minority group members obtaining lower observed scores than true scores (i.e., a form of measurement bias), then the performance of minority group members should be under predicted. Our characterization of Cullen et al.’s (2004) statement was too cryptic; what was intended was a statement to the effect that if the regression lines for majority and minority groups are identical at the level of true predictor scores, then a biasing factor resulting in lower observed scores than true scores for minority group members would shift the minority group regression line to result in under prediction for that group. We do agree with Helms’s (see record 2009-06923-015) call for studying the reasons why racial- group differences are found and encourage this line of research; however, we view the study of racial-group differences and the study of determinants of those differences as complementary. We thank the authors for contributing these commentaries and for stimulating this discussion. Duckworth (2009) and Kaufman and Agars (2009) discussed important issues regarding expanding the predictor and criterion domains. Wicherts and Millsap (2009) correctly noted distinctions between predictive and measurement bias and used stereotype threat as a mechanism to discuss these issues. Helms (2009) raised several issues regarding the validity and fairness of standardized tests. In all cases, we welcomed the opportunity to discuss these topics and provide more detail on issues relating to high-stakes standardized testing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Erratum: Employment Test Validation for Minority and Nonminority Telephone Operators.

Reports an error in the original article by Gael et al (Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 60(4) Aug 1975, 411-419). There is a typographical error in Table S on page 417. In the last column, the predicted criterion value for the white sample should be 339 rather than 399. (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 1975-28555-001.) Validated 10 pencil-and-paper tests against telephone operator proficiency measured in specially developed job simulations. Job analysis information plus patterns of validity coefficients for a nationwide sample (N = 1,091) working in 3 different telephone operator jobs indicated that a number of behavioral dimensions were common to all 3 jobs. Data, therefore, were combined across jobs and analyzed separately for Black, Spanish-surnamed, and White operators. A composite of the 4 maximally predictive tests was significantly predictive of a composite criterion for all ethnic groups, but less so for the Spanish-surnamed. Ethnic regression-line slopes and intercepts differed significantly. The common regression equation generally did not underpredict minority operator proficiency, and a composite test cutoff considered fair for minority and nonminority applicants is recommended. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Self-stereotyping and social context: The effects of relative in-group size and in-group status.

In 2 laboratory experiments, the tendency to stereotype oneself in terms of one's group membership as a function of the social context was examined. Exp 1 examined the effects of relative ingroup size on self-stereotyping. The results confirmed the prediction that minority members are more likely than majority members to stereotype themselves. Exp 2 examined the interactive impact of relative in-group size and in-group status. As predicted, a high (relative to a low) status of the in-group increased self-stereotyping primarily for minority members, but not for majority members. Moreover, analyses of the differences in perceived in-group and out-group homogeneity suggest that the in-group homogeneity effect should also be interpreted in terms of self-stereotyping processes. Finally, the interplay between cognitive and motivational determinants of self-stereotyping is discussed as well as a possible distinction between self-stereotyping effects on individual level vs group level self-representations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Employment test validation for minority and nonminority clerks with work sample criteria.

10 tests of intellectual ability and perceptual speed and accuracy were validated against specially developed clerical work samples of telephone company employees, using a newly hired sample of 143 Blacks, 74 Spanish-surnamed, and 195 Whites. Most validity coefficients were statistically significant, and in only 2 out of 36 comparisons were ethnic sample validity coefficients significantly different. A combination of 4 tests was significantly predictive of clerical proficiency for each ethnic sample and for the total combined sample. Comparisons of ethnic sample regression equations indicated that the slopes were essentially the same but that the intercepts differed significantly. The total sample regression equation did not underpredict prospective proficiency levels for minority clerks. A composite predictor found to be appropriate for minority and nonminority applicants for clerical jobs is recommended for employment office use. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Employment test validation for minority and nonminority telephone operators.

Validated 10 pencil-and-paper tests against telephone operator proficiency measured in specially developed job simulations. Job analysis information plus patterns of validity coefficients for a nationwide sample (N = 1,091) working in 3 different telephone operator jobs indicated that a number of behavioral dimensions were common to all 3 jobs. Data, therefore, were combined across jobs and analyzed separately for Black, Spanish-surnamed, and White operators. A composite of the 4 maximally predictive tests was significantly predictive of a composite criterion for all ethnic groups, but less so for the Spanish-surnamed. Ethnic regression-line slopes and intercepts differed significantly. The common regression equation generally did not underpredict minority operator proficiency, and a composite test cutoff considered fair for minority and nonminority applicants is recommended. (21 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Exposure to dissent and recall of information.

Recent work on minority influence has led to a debate about whether majorities and minorities exercise different forms of influence. C. L. Nemeth (see record 1986-14271-001) has argued that consistent minorities induce different cognitive processes than do consistent majorities, with a resulting impact on the quality of the judgments rendered. Two experiments test this theory. In Experiment 1, Ss heard 3 tape-recorded lists of words and learned that either a minority or a majority differed in the category "first noticed." This feedback occurred either once or over 3 trials. When exposure was once, recall was not affected by the source; when it was consistent, Ss exposed to the minority view recalled more words than those exposed to the majority view. In Experiment 2, Ss were exposed to a minority view that was either consistent over time or inconsistent over time. Ss exposed to a consistent minority had better recall than control Ss. Exposure to an inconsistent minority did not improve recall. The results offer support for the Nemeth formulation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)