Book contents
- Global Perspectives on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing
- Educational and Psychological Testing in a Global Context
- Global Perspectives on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor Foreword
- Chapter 1 An Introduction to and Summary of Global Perspectives from Twenty-Three Countries on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing
- Chapter 2 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Australia
- Chapter 3 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Belgium
- Chapter 4 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Canada
- Chapter 5 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in China
- Chapter 6 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in France
- Chapter 7 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Germany
- Chapter 8 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Ghana
- Chapter 9 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Greece
- Chapter 10 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in India
- Chapter 11 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Italy
- Chapter 12 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Japan
- Chapter 13 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Mexico
- Chapter 14 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in the Netherlands
- Chapter 15 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Nigeria
- Chapter 16 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Poland
- Chapter 17 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Romania
- Chapter 18 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in South Africa
- Chapter 19 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in South Korea
- Chapter 20 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Spain
- Chapter 21 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Sweden
- Chapter 22 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Türkiye
- Chapter 23 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in the United Kingdom
- Chapter 24 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in the United States
- Index
- References
Chapter 24 - Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in the United States
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 November 2025
Book contents
- Global Perspectives on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing
- Educational and Psychological Testing in a Global Context
- Global Perspectives on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor Foreword
- Chapter 1 An Introduction to and Summary of Global Perspectives from Twenty-Three Countries on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing
- Chapter 2 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Australia
- Chapter 3 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Belgium
- Chapter 4 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Canada
- Chapter 5 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in China
- Chapter 6 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in France
- Chapter 7 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Germany
- Chapter 8 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Ghana
- Chapter 9 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Greece
- Chapter 10 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in India
- Chapter 11 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Italy
- Chapter 12 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Japan
- Chapter 13 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Mexico
- Chapter 14 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in the Netherlands
- Chapter 15 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Nigeria
- Chapter 16 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Poland
- Chapter 17 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Romania
- Chapter 18 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in South Africa
- Chapter 19 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in South Korea
- Chapter 20 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Spain
- Chapter 21 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Sweden
- Chapter 22 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Türkiye
- Chapter 23 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in the United Kingdom
- Chapter 24 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in the United States
- Index
- References
Summary
In the United States, the legal environment for selection is a central issue that plays a large role in the practice of industrial, work, and organizational psychology. Concern for adverse impact, bias, and fairness goes hand in hand with concern for reliability and validity in the design of any professionally developed selection system. The United States is racially and ethnically diverse (roughly 59 percent White, 19 percent Hispanic/Latino, 13 percent Black/African American, 6 percent Asian American, and 1 percent Native Americans/Alaskans Natives). Federal legislation specifies seven protected classes: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability. Most of the discussion of bias and fairness in the selection field focuses on race and sex. Legislation, court rulings, government guidance, and professional standards offer a complex framework for the consideration of issues of bias and fairness, an overview of which is provided in this chapter.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Global Perspectives on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing , pp. 480 - 502Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Aguinis, H., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1997). Methodological artifacts in moderated multiple regression and their effects on statistical power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, & NCME) (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. AERA, APA, & NCME.Google Scholar
Berry, C. M. (2015). Differential validity and differential prediction of cognitive ability tests: Understanding test bias in the employment context. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 435–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blotevogel, M. T. (2003). Testing Title VII’s patience? The need for better remedies when state teacher testing requirements have a disparate impact on employment opportunities for minority populations. Washington University Law Quarterly, 81, 561–569.Google Scholar
Cleary, T. A. (1968). Test bias: Prediction of grades of Negro and white students in integrated colleges. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlke, J. A., & Sackett, P. R. (2018). Refinements to effect sizes for tests of categorical moderation and differential prediction. Organizational Research Methods, 21(1), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117736591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlke, J. A., & Sackett, P. R. (2021). On the assessment of predictive bias in selection systems with multiple predictors. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000996.Google ScholarPubMed
De Corte, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Combining predictors to achieve optimal trade-offs between selection quality and adverse impact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1380–1393. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, W. M., & Caplinger, J. A. (2007). Transportation of validation results. In McPhail, S. M. (Ed.), Alternative validation strategies: Developing new and leveraging existing validity evidence (pp. 29–81). Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Golubovich, J., Grand, J. A., Ryan, A. M., & Schmitt, N. (2014). An examination of common sensitivity review practices in test development: Sensitivity review practices in test development. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand, J. A., Golubovich, J., Ryan, A. M., & Schmitt, N. (2013). The detection and influence of problematic item content in ability tests: An examination of sensitivity review practices for personnel selection test development. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guion, R. M. (2011). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutman, A., Koppes, L. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2011). EEO law and personnel practices. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In Weiner, H. & Braun, H. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129–145). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1037/14047-004.Google Scholar
Howarth, J. W. (2020). The professional responsibility case for valid and nondiscriminatory bar exams. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 33, 931–967.Google Scholar
Jacobs, R., Murphy, K., & Silva, J. (2013). Unintended consequences of EEO enforcement policies: Being big is worse than being bad. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(4), 467–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lautenschlager, G. J., & Mendoza, J. L. (1986). A step-down hierarchical multiple regression analysis for examining hypotheses about test bias in prediction. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10(2), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168601000202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linn, R. L., & Werts, C. E. (1971). Considerations for studies of test bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1971.tb00898.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Kepes, S., & Banks, G. C. (2011). The Uniform Guidelines are a detriment to the field of personnel selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4(4), 494–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01382.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPhail, S. M. (2005). Auditing selection processes: Application of a risk assessment model. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 8(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15503461tpmj0802_10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPhail, S. M. (Ed.). (2007). Alternative validation strategies: Developing new and leveraging existing validity evidence. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Morris, S. B., & Lobsenz, R. E. (2000). Significance tests and confidence internals for the adverse impact ratio. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00195.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myors, B., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., Van Hoye, G., Cronshaw, S. F., Mladinic, A., Rodríguez, V., Aguinis, H., Steiner, D. D., Rolland, F., Schuler, H., Frintrup, A., Nikolaou, I., Tomprou, M., Subramony, S., Raj, S. B., Tzafrir, S., Bamberger, P., Bertolino, M., … Sackett, P. R. (2008). International perspectives on the legal environment for selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1(2), 200–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00040.x.Google Scholar
Nye, C. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2017). New effect sizes for tests of categorical moderation and differential prediction. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 639–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116644505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Outtz, J. (Ed.). (2010). Adverse impact: Implications for organizational staffing and high stakes selection. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ployhart, R. E., & Holtz, B. C. (2008). The diversity–validity dilemma: Strategies for reducing racioethnic and sex subgroup differences and adverse impact in selection. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00109.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, H. J., & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17(2), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169301700201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R. (2011). The Uniform Guidelines is not a scientific document: Implications for expert testimony. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Implications for Science and Practice, 4(4), 455–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01389.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R., & Wilk, S. L. (1994). Within-group norming and other forms of score adjustment in pre-employment testing. American Psychologist, 49(11), 929–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.11.929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Borneman, M. J., & Connelly, B. S. (2008). High stakes testing in higher education and employment: Appraising the evidence for validity and fairness. American Psychologist, 63(4), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.4.215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sackett, P. R., Laczo, R. M., & Lippe, Z. P. (2003). Differential prediction and the use of multiple predictors: The omitted variables problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1046–1056. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sackett, P. R., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J. E., & Kabin, M. B. (2001). High stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education: Prospects in a post-affirmative action world. American Psychologist, 56, 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siskin, B., & Trippi, J. (2005). Statistical issues in litigation. In Landy, F. J. (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation (pp. 135–166). Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). (2018). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (5th ed.). SIOP.Google Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) (2023, January). Considerations and recommendations for the validation and use of AI-based assessments for employee selection. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. https://shorturl.at/mehod.Google Scholar
Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(4), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1990.tb00754.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tippins, N. (2010). A practitioner’s perspective on adverse impact. In Outtz, J. (Ed.), Adverse impact: Implications for organizational staffing and high stakes selection (pp. 201–226). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). QuickFacts. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221.Google Scholar
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2022, May 12). The Americans with Disabilities Act and the use of software, algorithms, and artificial intelligence to assess job applicants and employees. www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/americans-disabilities-act-and-use-software-algorithms-and-artificial-intelligence.Google Scholar
Vespa, J., Medina, L., & Armstrong, D. M. (2020). Demographic turning points for the United States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060. www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1144.pdf.Google Scholar
Zwick, R. (2012). A review of ETS differential item functioning assessment procedures: Flagging rules, minimum sample size requirements, and criterion refinement (ETS RR-12-08; ETS Research Report Series). ETS. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2012.tb02290.x.Google Scholar
Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Lewis, C. (1999). An empirical Bayes approach to Mantel-Haenszel DIF analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1999.tb00543.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.