[IPAC-List] differential validity?

[Bryan Baldwin]

For those more statistically minded, perhaps a comment on the
statistics/analysis results?
 
The authors used a "regression-based moderator search" and came up with
the following results for the aforementioned education level-task
performance results:
 
Proportion of women: k=91, Beta = -.20 (p<.05), explained variance:
.04
Proportion of racial minority: k=36, Beta = -.22 (p<.10), explained
variance: .05
 
 
Bryan Baldwin
Staff Services Manager
California Department of Justice
Division of Administrative Support
Personnel Programs
(916) 322-5446



>>> Joel Wiesen <wiesen at personnelselection.com> 3/16/2009 5:26 AM >>>

What do you think of this apparent support for differential validity 
(from a recent Personnel Psych article)?

Might it imply that education is problematic as selection tool when the

applicant group includes minorities and/or women?  Would it imply that

an education requirement may be unfair to minorities and/or women?

Joel


"Finally, Hypothesis 6 predicted that the education-performance 
relationship will be stronger for men (vs. women; Hypothesis 6a) and
for 
Caucasians (vs. non-Caucasians; Hypothesis 6b). With respect to the 
relationship between education level and task performance, we found
that 
the relationship was more positive for Caucasians than for other racial

groups and for men than for women. Further, we found that the 
relationship between education and OCB was more positive for Caucasians

than for other racial groups. These results provide some support for 
Hypothesis 6a and Hypothesis 6b."

From:
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 62, 89*134
HOW BROADLY DOES EDUCATION CONTRIBUTE TO JOB PERFORMANCE?
THOMAS W. H. NG; University of Hong Kong
DANIEL C. FELDMAN; University of Georgia

_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org 
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the
use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use
or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the
communication.