Knowledge that Transforms

The central question addressed in this article is whether the test scores of immigrants and majority group members reflect the same dimensions.Use was made of scores on the Dutch version of the General Aptitude Test Battery on first-generation immigrants (N = 1,322) and majority group members (N = 806) who applied for blue-collar jobs in the Netherlands.The group differences with respect to the construct validity were small.Spearman's hypothesis that general intelligence is the predominant factor determining the size of the differences between 2 groups was borne out significantly.The test can be put to good use for comparisons within culturally homogeneous groups of non-nativeborn, non-native-language minorities.Use of the test for comparisons between immigrant and majority group members, however, requires supplementary research.Following Bmet's (Binet & Simon, 1905) example, standardized ability tests were developed in Western countries, and they are now being used all over the world.An important question is whether this use is justifiable on the grounds of the results of empirical research.Because important selection decisions are often made on the basis of test scores, small group differences in validity can have large consequences for groups.Test users are therefore obliged to base their professional judgments on instruments having an established validity.Research on White and non-White populations in North America and Europe shows that standardized ability tests have predictive validity in work and learning situations and that they have construct validity.On the basis of a review of research outcomes in the United States, Jensen (1980) concluded thatThe currently most widely used standardized tests of mental ability-IQ, scholastic aptitude, and achievement tests-

The relationships between examinees' racial subgroup membership and their perceptions of the predictive validity of a widely used personality test (NEO Five Factor Inventory; P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) and a widely used cognitive ability test (Wonderlic Personnel Test; E. F. Wonderlic, 1984) were examined. Results from 241 undergraduates showed that Black examinees perceived the cognitive ability test as less valid than White examinees, whereas no significant Black-White difference in predictive validity perceptions was observed on the personality test. Results also indicated a significant but small positive association between performance on the cognitive ability test and predictive validity perceptions of the cognitive ability test. Contrary to predictions, there was little evidence that test performance mediated the relationship between race and predictive validity perceptions on the cognitive ability test. Conversely, predictive validity perceptions did not appear to account for any substantial portion of the racial subgroup differences in test performance.

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.

The relationships among race, face validity perceptions, test-taking motivation, and test performance on a cognitive ability test were examined. Undergraduates completed 2 parallel cognitive ability tests and a test reactions measure. Results showed that test-taking motivation was related positively to subsequent performance on a parallel test even after the effects of race and performance on the first test were controlled. The effect of race on subsequent test performance was found to be mediated partially by motivation that provided evidence that some portion of the Black-White difference in test performance may be explained through differences in test-taking motivation. Results also indicated that Black-White differences in face validity perceptions of the test may be a function of Black-White differences in test performance. Face validity perceptions of the test affected subsequent performance on the parallel test but only indirectly through test-taking motivation.

Psychosocial factors such as work characteristics, life events, social support, and personality were examined as predictors of the change in medically certified sickness absence observed during a period of severe economic decline. Longitudinal data, derived from self-reports and register-based information relating to 763 local government employees, were collected at 3 points during a 5-year period: before the economic decline, during the nadir of that decline, and immediately after the nadir. After the effects of prior absence and demographic and lifestyle variables had been partialed out, the results of multiple Poisson regression analyses showed that work characteristics play a major role in forthcoming sickness absences. Negative life events and the personality trait sense of coherence (in women) also predicted forthcoming absence rate. Social support did not relate to absences either in men or in women.

On the basis of a distinction between test content and method of testing, the present study examined several conceptually and practically important effects relating race, reading comprehension, method of assessment, face validity perceptions, and performance on a situational judgement test using a sample of 241 psychology undergraduates (113 Blacks and 128 Whites). Results showed that the Black-White differences in situational judgment test performance and face validity reactions to the test were substantially smaller in the video-based method of testing than in the paper-and-pencil method. The Race x Method interaction effect on test performance was attributable to differences in reading comprehension and face validity reactions associated with race and method of testing. Implications of the findings were discussed in the context of research on adverse impact and examinee test reactions.