ETHNIC GROUP DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS: A META-ANALYSIS
The cognitive ability levels of different ethnic groups have interested psychologists for over a century. Many narrative reviews of the empirical literature in the area focus on the Black‐White differences, and the reviews conclude that the mean difference in cognitive ability (g) is approximately 1...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Personnel psychology 2001-06, Vol.54 (2), p.297-330 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 330 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 297 |
container_title | Personnel psychology |
container_volume | 54 |
creator | ROTH, PHILIP L. BEVIER, CRAIG A. BOBKO, PHILIP SWITZER III, FRED S. TYLER, PEGGY |
description | The cognitive ability levels of different ethnic groups have interested psychologists for over a century. Many narrative reviews of the empirical literature in the area focus on the Black‐White differences, and the reviews conclude that the mean difference in cognitive ability (g) is approximately 1 standard deviation; that is, the generally accepted effect size is about 1.0. We conduct a meta‐analytic review that suggests that the one standard deviation effect size accurately summarizes Black‐White differences for college application tests (e.g., SAT) and overall analyses of tests of g for job applicants in corporate settings. However, the 1 standard deviation summary of group differences fails to capture many of the complexities in estimating ethnic group differences in employment settings. For example, our results indicate that job complexity, the use of within job versus across job study design, focus on applicant versus incumbent samples, and the exact construct of interest are important moderators of standardized group differences. In many instances, standardized group differences are less than 1 standard deviation. We conduct similar analyses for Hispanics, when possible, and note that Hispanic‐White differences are somewhat less than Black‐White differences. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_220141723</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>74812158</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4347-4733702806b720e5dffed23efca00138c8c813710466f039462dc96340716ad93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkF1r2zAYhcVoYenHfxC9t_fqI5Ldm-I5iitw5LRWNnIlXEeGpN3S2SlL__1kUno_6UJwdM55eR-EbgjEJJxvu5hIziMxlRBTABIfngAg5fHxC5p8fp2hCQAj0TSh4iu6GIZdMAHlyQR5Ze-NznHxWK2WeKbnc_WoTK5qrA3Oq8Joq38onH3XpbbrUVSLZVmtF8pYnJkZVrNVnlldmazEtbJWm6K-xRleKJtFWVDXta6v0HnXvAz--uO9RKu5svl9VFaFzrMyajnjMuKSMQk0AfEkKfjppuv8hjLftU3YjSVtuIRJAlyIDljKBd20qWAcJBHNJmWX6ObU-9rv_7z54eB2-7f-dxjpKAXCiaQsmG5PprbfD0PvO_fab381_bsj4EaqbudGdG5E50aq7oOqO4bw3Sn8d_vi3_8j6ZZqWdNUhobo1LAdDv742dD0z05IJqfupykce5gtktqkTrJ_4LmDzQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>220141723</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>ETHNIC GROUP DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS: A META-ANALYSIS</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>ROTH, PHILIP L. ; BEVIER, CRAIG A. ; BOBKO, PHILIP ; SWITZER III, FRED S. ; TYLER, PEGGY</creator><creatorcontrib>ROTH, PHILIP L. ; BEVIER, CRAIG A. ; BOBKO, PHILIP ; SWITZER III, FRED S. ; TYLER, PEGGY</creatorcontrib><description>The cognitive ability levels of different ethnic groups have interested psychologists for over a century. Many narrative reviews of the empirical literature in the area focus on the Black‐White differences, and the reviews conclude that the mean difference in cognitive ability (g) is approximately 1 standard deviation; that is, the generally accepted effect size is about 1.0. We conduct a meta‐analytic review that suggests that the one standard deviation effect size accurately summarizes Black‐White differences for college application tests (e.g., SAT) and overall analyses of tests of g for job applicants in corporate settings. However, the 1 standard deviation summary of group differences fails to capture many of the complexities in estimating ethnic group differences in employment settings. For example, our results indicate that job complexity, the use of within job versus across job study design, focus on applicant versus incumbent samples, and the exact construct of interest are important moderators of standardized group differences. In many instances, standardized group differences are less than 1 standard deviation. We conduct similar analyses for Hispanics, when possible, and note that Hispanic‐White differences are somewhat less than Black‐White differences.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0031-5826</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1744-6570</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Ability tests ; Achievement tests ; African Americans ; Applicants ; Cognition & reasoning ; Cognitive ability ; Cognitive Measurement ; Cognitive Tests ; College Applicants ; Decision making ; Differences ; Educational Opportunities ; Effect Size ; Employment ; Estimates ; Ethnic Groups ; Hiring ; Hispanic Americans ; Job Applicants ; Job performance ; Mathematical Aptitude ; Meta Analysis ; Minority & ethnic groups ; Minority Groups ; Ratios ; Resistance (Psychology) ; Sampling ; Standard deviation ; Studies ; Systematic review ; Test Bias ; Whites</subject><ispartof>Personnel psychology, 2001-06, Vol.54 (2), p.297-330</ispartof><rights>Copyright Personnel Psychology, Inc. Summer 2001</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4347-4733702806b720e5dffed23efca00138c8c813710466f039462dc96340716ad93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4347-4733702806b720e5dffed23efca00138c8c813710466f039462dc96340716ad93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>ROTH, PHILIP L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BEVIER, CRAIG A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BOBKO, PHILIP</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SWITZER III, FRED S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TYLER, PEGGY</creatorcontrib><title>ETHNIC GROUP DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS: A META-ANALYSIS</title><title>Personnel psychology</title><description>The cognitive ability levels of different ethnic groups have interested psychologists for over a century. Many narrative reviews of the empirical literature in the area focus on the Black‐White differences, and the reviews conclude that the mean difference in cognitive ability (g) is approximately 1 standard deviation; that is, the generally accepted effect size is about 1.0. We conduct a meta‐analytic review that suggests that the one standard deviation effect size accurately summarizes Black‐White differences for college application tests (e.g., SAT) and overall analyses of tests of g for job applicants in corporate settings. However, the 1 standard deviation summary of group differences fails to capture many of the complexities in estimating ethnic group differences in employment settings. For example, our results indicate that job complexity, the use of within job versus across job study design, focus on applicant versus incumbent samples, and the exact construct of interest are important moderators of standardized group differences. In many instances, standardized group differences are less than 1 standard deviation. We conduct similar analyses for Hispanics, when possible, and note that Hispanic‐White differences are somewhat less than Black‐White differences.</description><subject>Ability tests</subject><subject>Achievement tests</subject><subject>African Americans</subject><subject>Applicants</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Cognitive Measurement</subject><subject>Cognitive Tests</subject><subject>College Applicants</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Differences</subject><subject>Educational Opportunities</subject><subject>Effect Size</subject><subject>Employment</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Ethnic Groups</subject><subject>Hiring</subject><subject>Hispanic Americans</subject><subject>Job Applicants</subject><subject>Job performance</subject><subject>Mathematical Aptitude</subject><subject>Meta Analysis</subject><subject>Minority & ethnic groups</subject><subject>Minority Groups</subject><subject>Ratios</subject><subject>Resistance (Psychology)</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Standard deviation</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Test Bias</subject><subject>Whites</subject><issn>0031-5826</issn><issn>1744-6570</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkF1r2zAYhcVoYenHfxC9t_fqI5Ldm-I5iitw5LRWNnIlXEeGpN3S2SlL__1kUno_6UJwdM55eR-EbgjEJJxvu5hIziMxlRBTABIfngAg5fHxC5p8fp2hCQAj0TSh4iu6GIZdMAHlyQR5Ze-NznHxWK2WeKbnc_WoTK5qrA3Oq8Joq38onH3XpbbrUVSLZVmtF8pYnJkZVrNVnlldmazEtbJWm6K-xRleKJtFWVDXta6v0HnXvAz--uO9RKu5svl9VFaFzrMyajnjMuKSMQk0AfEkKfjppuv8hjLftU3YjSVtuIRJAlyIDljKBd20qWAcJBHNJmWX6ObU-9rv_7z54eB2-7f-dxjpKAXCiaQsmG5PprbfD0PvO_fab381_bsj4EaqbudGdG5E50aq7oOqO4bw3Sn8d_vi3_8j6ZZqWdNUhobo1LAdDv742dD0z05IJqfupykce5gtktqkTrJ_4LmDzQ</recordid><startdate>200106</startdate><enddate>200106</enddate><creator>ROTH, PHILIP L.</creator><creator>BEVIER, CRAIG A.</creator><creator>BOBKO, PHILIP</creator><creator>SWITZER III, FRED S.</creator><creator>TYLER, PEGGY</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200106</creationdate><title>ETHNIC GROUP DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS: A META-ANALYSIS</title><author>ROTH, PHILIP L. ; BEVIER, CRAIG A. ; BOBKO, PHILIP ; SWITZER III, FRED S. ; TYLER, PEGGY</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4347-4733702806b720e5dffed23efca00138c8c813710466f039462dc96340716ad93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Ability tests</topic><topic>Achievement tests</topic><topic>African Americans</topic><topic>Applicants</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Cognitive Measurement</topic><topic>Cognitive Tests</topic><topic>College Applicants</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Differences</topic><topic>Educational Opportunities</topic><topic>Effect Size</topic><topic>Employment</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Ethnic Groups</topic><topic>Hiring</topic><topic>Hispanic Americans</topic><topic>Job Applicants</topic><topic>Job performance</topic><topic>Mathematical Aptitude</topic><topic>Meta Analysis</topic><topic>Minority & ethnic groups</topic><topic>Minority Groups</topic><topic>Ratios</topic><topic>Resistance (Psychology)</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Standard deviation</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Test Bias</topic><topic>Whites</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>ROTH, PHILIP L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BEVIER, CRAIG A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BOBKO, PHILIP</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SWITZER III, FRED S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TYLER, PEGGY</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Personnel psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>ROTH, PHILIP L.</au><au>BEVIER, CRAIG A.</au><au>BOBKO, PHILIP</au><au>SWITZER III, FRED S.</au><au>TYLER, PEGGY</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>ETHNIC GROUP DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS: A META-ANALYSIS</atitle><jtitle>Personnel psychology</jtitle><date>2001-06</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>54</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>297</spage><epage>330</epage><pages>297-330</pages><issn>0031-5826</issn><eissn>1744-6570</eissn><abstract>The cognitive ability levels of different ethnic groups have interested psychologists for over a century. Many narrative reviews of the empirical literature in the area focus on the Black‐White differences, and the reviews conclude that the mean difference in cognitive ability (g) is approximately 1 standard deviation; that is, the generally accepted effect size is about 1.0. We conduct a meta‐analytic review that suggests that the one standard deviation effect size accurately summarizes Black‐White differences for college application tests (e.g., SAT) and overall analyses of tests of g for job applicants in corporate settings. However, the 1 standard deviation summary of group differences fails to capture many of the complexities in estimating ethnic group differences in employment settings. For example, our results indicate that job complexity, the use of within job versus across job study design, focus on applicant versus incumbent samples, and the exact construct of interest are important moderators of standardized group differences. In many instances, standardized group differences are less than 1 standard deviation. We conduct similar analyses for Hispanics, when possible, and note that Hispanic‐White differences are somewhat less than Black‐White differences.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x</doi><tpages>34</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0031-5826 |
ispartof | Personnel psychology, 2001-06, Vol.54 (2), p.297-330 |
issn | 0031-5826 1744-6570 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_220141723 |
source | Business Source Complete; EBSCOhost Education Source; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | Ability tests Achievement tests African Americans Applicants Cognition & reasoning Cognitive ability Cognitive Measurement Cognitive Tests College Applicants Decision making Differences Educational Opportunities Effect Size Employment Estimates Ethnic Groups Hiring Hispanic Americans Job Applicants Job performance Mathematical Aptitude Meta Analysis Minority & ethnic groups Minority Groups Ratios Resistance (Psychology) Sampling Standard deviation Studies Systematic review Test Bias Whites |
title | ETHNIC GROUP DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS: A META-ANALYSIS |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T03%3A34%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=ETHNIC%20GROUP%20DIFFERENCES%20IN%20COGNITIVE%20ABILITY%20IN%20EMPLOYMENT%20AND%20EDUCATIONAL%20SETTINGS:%20A%20META-ANALYSIS&rft.jtitle=Personnel%20psychology&rft.au=ROTH,%20PHILIP%20L.&rft.date=2001-06&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=297&rft.epage=330&rft.pages=297-330&rft.issn=0031-5826&rft.eissn=1744-6570&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E74812158%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=220141723&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |