Knowledge that Transforms

The concept of differential validity suggests that cognitive ability tests are associated with varying levels of validity across ethnic groups, such that validity is lower in certain ethnic subgroups than in others. A recent meta-analysis has revived the viability of this concept. Unfortunately, data were not available in this meta-analysis to correct for range restriction within ethnic groups. We reviewed the differential validity literature and conducted 4 studies. In Study 1, we empirically demonstrated that using a cognitive ability test with a common cutoff decreases variance in test scores of Black subgroup samples more than in White samples. In Study 2, we developed a simulation that examined the effects of range restriction on estimates of differential validity. Results demonstrated that different levels of range restriction for subgroups can explain the apparent observed differential validity results in employment and educational settings (but not military settings) when no differential validity exists in the population. In Study 3, we conducted a simulation in which we examined how one corrects for range restriction affects the accuracy of these corrections. Results suggest that the correction approach using a common range restriction ratio for various subgroups may create or perpetuate the illusion of differential validity and that corrections are most accurate when done within each subgroup. Finally, in Study 4, we conducted a simulation in which we assumed differential validity in the population. We found that range restriction artificially increased the size of observed differential validity estimates when the validity of cognitive ability tests was assumed to be higher among Whites. Overall, we suggest that the concept of differential validity may be largely artifactual and current data are not definitive enough to suggest such effects exist.

The majority of studies on idiosyncratic employment arrangements ("i-deals") are based on social exchange theory. The authors suggest that self-enhancement theory, in addition to social exchange, can be used to explain the effects of i-deals. Using a multisource sample including 230 employees and 102 supervisors from 2 Chinese companies, the authors adopt a 3-wave lagged design to examine the mediating roles of social exchange and self-enhancement and the moderating role of individualism in the relationships between i-deals and employee outcomes, as indicated by proactive behaviors and affective commitment. The results of bootstrapping analyses confirm the mediating effects of social exchange and self-enhancement. In addition, employees with high levels of individualism are more receptive to self-enhancement effects; in contrast, employees with low levels of individualism are more receptive to social exchange effects.

We examine how employees' centrality in the networks of positively valenced ties (e.g., friendship, advice) and negatively valenced ties (e.g., avoidance) at work interact to affect these employees' organizational attachment. Using 2 different samples (154 employees in a division of a food and animal science organization and 144 employees in a product development firm), we found that employees' centrality in positive and negative tie networks at work were related to their organizational attachment indirectly via their impact on employees' satisfaction with their workplace relationships. Further, interaction results in both studies suggest that the effect of employees' centrality in positive tie networks on their satisfaction with workplace social relationships was stronger when employees had more negative relationships but was irrelevant when employees had fewer negative ties. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Recent meta-analyses demonstrated that the observed correlation between cognitive ability test scores and performance criteria was lower for Black and Hispanic subgroups than for Asian and White subgroups in college admissions, civilian employment, and military domains (i.e., differential validity). Given mean score differences between racial/ethnic subgroups, these observed validities may have been confounded by subgroup differences in range restriction. The present study draws on data from hundreds of cognitive ability test validity studies including more than 1 million persons to investigate whether Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White subgroups have differed in amounts of range restriction. We first replicated observed differential validity results and also extended them by presenting the first meta-analytic evidence that observed cognitive ability test validity is lower for the Hispanic subgroup in civilian employment settings. All subgroups were approximately equivalently restricted in range in college admissions and civilian employment domains, but the Black subgroup was more restricted in range than the White subgroup in military studies. In all 3 domains, any differences in range restriction could not account for observed validity differences between subgroups. We also provide estimates of range-restriction-corrected validities; Black and Hispanic subgroups' corrected validities were 11.3-18.0% lower than White corrected validities across domains.

This research examines the relationship between the construct and criterion-related validity of assessment centers (ACs) based on how convergence of dimension ratings across AC exercises affects their ability to predict managerial performance. According to traditional multitrait-multimethod perspective, a high degree of convergence represents more reliable measurement and has the potential for better validity. In contrast, the concept of situational bandwidth suggests that behavior assessed under a dissimilar set of circumstances should result in a more comprehensive assessment of a candidate's tendencies even though ratings are less likely to show high convergence. To test these opposing viewpoints, data from 3 operational ACs were obtained along with experts' evaluations of exercise characteristics and supervisors' ratings of candidates' managerial performance. Across the 3 samples, AC ratings taken from exercises with dissimilar demands had higher estimates of criterion-related validity than ratings taken from similar exercises, even though the same dimension-different exercise correlations were substantially higher between similar exercises. Composites of ratings high in convergence did not emerge as better predictors of managerial performance, and validity particularly suffered when derived from ratings that converged as a result of exercises with similar demands. Implications for AC design are discussed.

Understanding the processes through which trainee characteristics influence learning is important for identifying mechanisms that drive training effectiveness. We examine the direct and indirect paths through which core self-evaluations (CSE) impact learning. We also include general cognitive ability (GCA) to explore whether CSE's paths to effectiveness differ from those of a well-documented predictor of learning. We proposed a model in which CSE contributes to training effectiveness through its influence on motivational intervening mechanisms, and we tested this model empirically with military personnel (N = 638) who participated in job-required training. The data supported a partially mediated model. Irrespective of inclusion of GCA as a control variable, motivation and effort allocation (MEA) process variables (i.e., training motivation, midtraining self-efficacy, and midtraining goal setting) mediated (or partially mediated) the relationship between CSE and training outcomes that included affective (e.g., intentions to transfer), cognitive (e.g., declarative knowledge), and skill-based (e.g., proficiency) learning. Conversely, GCA had neither direct nor indirect effects on affective learning but did demonstrate direct effects on cognitive and skill-based learning. Results support the utility of including CSE in training research and practice, suggest that MEA serves as an explanatory mechanism for CSE's relation to learning outcomes, and demonstrate that CSE and GCA differentially influence training effectiveness and do so through different explanatory mechanisms.

We developed a focused, context-specific measure of sales self-efficacy and assessed its incremental validity against the broad Big 5 personality traits with department store salespersons, using (a) both a concurrent and a predictive design and (b) both objective sales measures and supervisory ratings of performance. We found that in the concurrent study, sales self-efficacy predicted objective and subjective measures of job performance more than did the Big 5 measures. Significant differences between the predictability of subjective and objective measures of performance were not observed. Predictive validity coefficients were generally lower than concurrent validity coefficients. The results suggest that there are different dynamics operating in concurrent and predictive designs and between broad and contextualized measures; they highlight the importance of distinguishing between these designs and measures in meta-analyses. The results also point to the value of focused, context-specific personality predictors in selection research.

When using cognitive tests, personnel selection practitioners typically face a trade-off between the expected job performance and diversity of new hires. We review the increasingly mainstream evidence that cognitive ability is a multidimensional and hierarchically ordered set of concepts, and examine the implications for both composite test validity and subgroup differences. Ultimately, we recommend a strategy for differentially weighting cognitive subtests (i.e., second-stratum abilities) in a way that minimizes overall subgroup differences without compromising composite test validity. Using data from 2 large validation studies that included a total of 15 job families, we demonstrate that this strategy could lead to substantial improvement in diversity hiring (e.g., doubling the number of job offers extended to minority applicants) and to at least 8% improvement in job offers made to minority applicants, without decrements in expected selection quality compared to a unit-weighted cognitive test composite. Finally, we conduct a sensitivity analysis to examine whether the technique continues to perform well when applied to applicant pools of smaller size. We discuss prerequisites for the application of this strategy, potential limitations, and extensions.

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) is often categorized as a tool for experimental psychologists. However, it also continues to be a popular statistical procedure used by organizational scientists. Unfortunately, when the dependent variables (DV) are correlated with one another, interpreting the significant omnibus test in MANOVA becomes difficult. The present article proposes a novel way of interpreting a significant MANOVA that draws from work dedicated to understanding the relative importance of correlated predictors in multiple regression. Relative importance analyses are specifically designed to overcome the limitations caused by correlated variables and permit researchers to appropriately partition shared variance. We derive and extend relative weight analysis to MANOVA designs and demonstrate how these weights may be used to draw inferences concerning the relative contribution of each DV to the overall multivariate effect. Through our example, we illustrate how researchers must consider the correlations among the DVs when interpreting a significant multivariate effect, and our procedure provides an effective mechanism for doing just that.

External leaders continue to be an important source of influence even when teams are empowered, but it is not always clear how they do so. Extending research on structurally empowered teams, we recognize that teams' external leaders are often responsible for multiple teams. We adopt a multilevel approach to model external leader influences at both the team level and the external leader level of analysis. In doing so, we distinguish the influence of general external leader behaviors (i.e., average external leadership) from those that are directed differently toward the teams that they lead (i.e., relative external leadership). Analysis of data collected from 451 individuals, in 101 teams, reporting to 25 external leaders, revealed that both relative and average external leadership related positively to team empowerment. In turn, team empowerment related positively to team performance and member job satisfaction. However, while the indirect effects were all positive, we found that relative external leadership was not directly related to team performance, and average external leadership evidenced a significant negative direct influence. Additionally, relative external leadership exhibited a significant direct positive influence on member job satisfaction as anticipated, whereas average external leadership did not. These findings attest to the value in distinguishing external leaders' behaviors that are exhibited consistently versus differentially across empowered teams. Implications and future directions for the study and management of external leaders overseeing multiple teams are discussed.