Personnel Psychology · 2008 · 278 citations · 45 references
ManagementHuman Resource ManagementOrganizational BehaviorDiscriminationGroup DynamicsWorkforce PlanningDisparate ImpactDiversityEthnic MinoritiesGroup DiversitySelection BiasSubgroup AnalysisJob Performance AssessmentSelection Assessment CentersSelection Bias ReductionSituational Judgment AssessmentSituational Judgment Test Content ValiditySubgroup Score DifferencesValidity Tradeoff
The diversity‑validity dilemma posits that highly predictive job‑performance measures often exhibit large racioethnic and sex subgroup score differences, a problem further explored by Kravitz. This article reviews 16 selection strategies aimed at reducing subgroup differences and adverse impact while preserving validity, offering practitioners a concise comparative overview. The paper addresses four key questions: which strategies best reduce subgroup differences, which avoid validity tradeoffs, what new developments exist for mitigating adverse impact, and how alternative predictor methods (interviews, situational judgment tests, assessment centers) can help. The authors conclude with recommendations and caveats for effectively balancing diversity and validity in selection practices.
Pyburn, Ployhart, and Kravitz (this issue, 2008) introduced the diversity–validity dilemma: that some of the most valid predictors of job performance are also associated with large racioethnic and sex subgroup predictor score differences. This article examines 16 selection strategies hypothesized to minimize racioethnic and sex subgroup differences and adverse impact and, hence, balance diversity and validity. Rather than presenting a highly technical review, our purpose is to provide practitioners with a concise summary, paying particular attention to comparing and contrasting the effectiveness of the strategies and reporting new developments. The paper is organized around 4 key questions: (a) Which strategies are most effective for reducing subgroup differences? (b) Which strategies do not involve a validity tradeoff? (c) What are the major new developments in strategies for reducing adverse impact? (d) What are the major new developments in alternative predictor measurement methods (e.g., interviews, situational judgment tests, assessment centers) for reducing adverse impact? We then conclude with recommendations and caveats for how to best balance diversity and validity. These ideas are developed further in Kravitz (this issue, 2008) , who considers even broader approaches for solving the diversity–validity dilemma.
45