Combining predictors to achieve optimal trade-offs between selection quality and adverse impact.

The authors propose a procedure to determine (a) predictor composites that result in a Pareto-optimal trade-off between the often competing goals in personnel selection of quality and adverse impact and (b) the relative importance of the quality and impact objectives that correspond to each of these trade-offs. They also investigated whether the obtained Pareto-optimal composites continue to perform well under variability of the selection parameters that characterize the intended selection decision. The results of this investigation indicate that this is indeed the case. The authors suggest that the procedure be used as one of a number of potential strategies for addressing the quality-adverse impact problem in settings where estimates of the selection parameters (e.g., validity estimates, predictor intercorrelations, subgroup mean differences on the predictors and criteria) are available from either a local validation study or meta-analytic research.

[1]  Michael A. McDaniel,et al.  A reexamination of black-white mean differences in work performance: more data, more moderators. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[2]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  Determinants, Detection and Amelioration of Adverse Impact in Personnel Selection Procedures: Issues, Evidence and Lessons Learned , 2001 .

[3]  Michael A. Campion,et al.  THE CONTROVERSY OVER SCORE BANDING IN PERSONNEL SELECTION: ANSWERS TO 10 KEY QUESTIONS , 2001 .

[4]  Philip L. Roth,et al.  DERIVATION AND IMPLICATIONS OF A META‐ANALYTIC MATRIX INCORPORATING COGNITIVE ABILITY, ALTERNATIVE PREDICTORS, AND JOB PERFORMANCE , 1999 .

[5]  A. Ryan,et al.  APPLICANT WITHDRAWAL: THE ROLE OF TEST‐TAKING ATTITUDES AND RACIAL DIFFERENCES , 1997 .

[6]  A. Ryan,et al.  Using personality testing to reduce adverse impact: A cautionary note. , 1998 .

[7]  Neil Anderson,et al.  INTERNATIONAL VALIDITY GENERALIZATION OF GMA AND COGNITIVE ABILITIES: A EUROPEAN COMMUNITY META-ANALYSIS , 2003 .

[8]  Kevin R. Murphy.  When your top choice turns you down: Effect of rejected offers on the utility of selection tests. , 1986 .

[9]  A. Ryan,et al.  Applicant self-selection: correlates of withdrawal from a multiple hurdle process. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[10]  W. D. Corte.  Weighing job performance predictors to both maximize the quality of the selected workforce and control the level of adverse impact , 1999 .

[11]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Impact of valid selection procedures on work-force productivity. , 1979 .

[12]  Kevin R. Murphy,et al.  Implications of the multidimensional nature of job performance for the validity of selection tests , 1997 .

[13]  Keith Hattrup,et al.  The effects of varying conceptualizations of job performance on adverse impact, minority hiring, and predicted performance. , 1997 .

[14]  F. Schmidt,et al.  The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. , 1998 .

[15]  Steffanie L. Wilk,et al.  Within-group norming and other forms of score adjustment in preemployment testing. , 1994, The American psychologist.

[16]  M. D. Dunnette.  Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 2005 .

[17]  Paul R. Sackett,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF FORMING MULTI‐PREDICTOR COMPOSITES ON GROUP DIFFERENCES AND ADVERSE IMPACT , 1997 .

[18]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives , 1993 .

[19]  James Outtz.  The Role of Cognitive Ability Tests in Employment Selection , 2002 .

[20]  N. Schmitt,et al.  An Evaluation of Two Strategies for Reducing Adverse Impact and Their Effects on Criterion-Related Validity , 1996 .

[21]  Alija Kulenović,et al.  Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing , 1999 .

[22]  Wilfried De Corte,et al.  Estimating and maximizing the utility of sequential selection decisions with a probationary period , 1998 .

[23]  Joseph A. C. Delaney.  Sensitivity analysis , 2018, The African Continental Free Trade Area: Economic and Distributional Effects.

[24]  Neal Schmitt,et al.  Adverse impact and predictive efficiency of various predictor combinations , 1997 .

[25]  John W. Boudreau,et al.  Utility Analysis for Decisions in Human Resource Management , 1988 .

[26]  G. M. Tallis.  The Moment Generating Function of the Truncated Multi‐Normal Distribution , 1961 .

[27]  James L. Outtz.  The Role of Cognitive Ability Tests in Employment Selection , 2002 .

[28]  Jill E. Ellingson,et al.  High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education. Prospects in a post-affirmative-action world. , 2001, The American psychologist.

[29]  John E. Dennis,et al.  Normal-Boundary Intersection: A New Method for Generating the Pareto Surface in Nonlinear Multicriteria Optimization Problems , 1998, SIAM J. Optim..

[30]  M. L. Kelly,et al.  PERSONALITY MEASURES AND BIODATA: EVIDENCE REGARDING THEIR INCREMENTAL PREDICTIVE VALUE IN THE LIFE INSURANCE INDUSTRY , 1999 .

[31]  C. Cooper,et al.  International review of industrial and organizational psychology , 1986 .

[32]  Jasbir S. Arora,et al.  Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering , 2004 .

[33]  Bela Martos,et al.  Nonlinear programming theory and methods , 1977 .

[34]  P. Bobko,et al.  Forming Composites of Cognitive Ability and Alternative Measures to Predict Job Performance and Reduce Adverse Impact: Corrected Estimates and Realistic Expectations , 2005 .

[35]  M. R. Novick,et al.  AN EVALUATION OF SOME MODELS FOR CULTURE-FAIR SELECTION , 1976 .

[36]  M. Burke,et al.  A New Approach for Utility Analysis , 1990 .

[37]  Dennis Doverspike,et al.  Simulations as a Method of Illustrating the Impact of Differential Weights on Personnel Selection Outcomes , 1996 .