I thought about stereo-type threat in relation to work sample tests, such as those used in firefighter selections systems. How are the physical predictors affected by stereotype threat? Do overweight applicants have stereotype threat in these conditions? Do women perform worse because the situation is a stereotypically threatening one?
I was grateful to see continued research to try to identify what are the psychological mechanisms underlying stereotype threat. This was interesting to see it investigated in a selection setting.
Increasing the face validity of employment tests seems like such an easy thing to do and increases test performance across groups. In the case of CA tests, this seems to have only upside for all test takers, but especially minority groups who are identified with their group. It seems that many organizations are now shying away from the use of CA tests even though they are good predictors of performance due to the risk of litigation based on adverse impact. Why would organizations choose to use less valid tests rather than increasing the face validity of CA tests and using them? Is the salience of the risk of litigation just to great?
I think this was a neat article – I like the mixture of an I-O topic with social psychology. I also thought their methodology was clever. Do you think there are any interpretations besides what they came up with?
I thought about stereo-type threat in relation to work sample tests, such as those used in firefighter selections systems. How are the physical predictors affected by stereotype threat? Do overweight applicants have stereotype threat in these conditions? Do women perform worse because the situation is a stereotypically threatening one?
ReplyDeleteI was grateful to see continued research to try to identify what are the psychological mechanisms underlying stereotype threat. This was interesting to see it investigated in a selection setting.
ReplyDeleteWhat measures can we take as selection specialists to help applicants overcome the “diagnostic” nature of selection testing?
ReplyDeleteGood question Shane. Do you think Blacks might perform better on a firefighter task as they are stereotyped as being more physically adept?
ReplyDeleteIncreasing the face validity of employment tests seems like such an easy thing to do and increases test performance across groups. In the case of CA tests, this seems to have only upside for all test takers, but especially minority groups who are identified with their group. It seems that many organizations are now shying away from the use of CA tests even though they are good predictors of performance due to the risk of litigation based on adverse impact. Why would organizations choose to use less valid tests rather than increasing the face validity of CA tests and using them? Is the salience of the risk of litigation just to great?
ReplyDeleteI think this was a neat article – I like the mixture of an I-O topic with social psychology. I also thought their methodology was clever. Do you think there are any interpretations besides what they came up with?
ReplyDeleteI agree. The face validity seems difficult yet helpful in altering the applicant reactions. Why are companies reluctant to value this?
ReplyDelete