Biomedical subjects

Philip Bobko

Publications and source records attributed to Philip Bobko.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Modeling the behavior of the 4/5ths rule for determining adverse impact: reasons for caution.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's 4/5ths rule has been used for over 20 years in applied psychology and employment law. The rule signals that there is adverse impact when the protected group selection ratio is less than 80% of the highest scoring group's selection ratio. We conducted several simulations and found, consistent with some previous management science literature, that the 4/5ths rule often resulted in false-positive readings of adverse impact even when there were no underlying (population) standardized group differences between subgroups. We then incorporated tests of statistical significance and found that adding such tests to the 4/5ths rule eliminated many false-positive indications of adverse impact. We also examined simulated selection systems based on meta-analytic values from the selection literature. The frequency of adverse impact signals from the 4/5ths rule increased markedly relative to simulations with no subgroup population differences. Adding statistical tests mitigated the number of indications of adverse impact to some extent.

Employment↗

PubMed2005

A comment on sampling error in the standardized mean difference with unequal sample sizes: avoiding potential errors in meta-analytic and primary research.

The authors discuss potential confusion in conducting primary studies and meta-analyses on the basis of differences between groups. First, the authors show that a formula for the sampling error of the standardized mean difference (d) that is based on equal group sample sizes can produce substantially biased results if applied with markedly unequal group sizes. Second, the authors show that the same concerns are present when primary analyses or meta-analyses are conducted with point-biserial correlations, as the point-biserial correlation (r) is a transformation of d. Third, the authors examine the practice of correcting a point-biserial r for unequal sample sizes and note that such correction would also increase the sampling error of the corrected r. Correcting rs for unequal sample sizes, but using the standard formula for sampling error in uncorrected r, can result in bias. The authors offer a set of recommendations for conducting meta-analyses of group differences.

Humans↗

PubMed2003

Ethnic group differences in measures of job performance: a new meta-analysis.

The authors conducted a new meta-analysis of ethnic group differences in job performance. Given a substantially increased set of data as compared with earlier analyses, the authors were able to conduct analyses of Black-White differences within more homogeneous categories of job performance and to reexamine findings on objective versus subjective measurement. Contrary to one perspective sometimes adopted in the field, objective measures are associated with very similar, if not somewhat larger, standardized ethnic group differences (ds) than subjective measures across a variety of indicators. This trend was consistent across quality, quantity, and absenteeism measures. Further, work samples and job knowledge tests are associated with larger ds than performance ratings or measures of absenteeism. Analysis of Hispanic-White standardized differences shows that they are generally lower than Black-White differences in several categories.

Employee Performance Appraisal↗

PubMed2002

Corrections for range restriction in structured interview ethnic group differences: the values may be larger than researchers thought.

Previous studies of standardized ethnic group differences in the employment interview have shown differences to be relatively small. Unfortunately, many researchers conducting interview studies have not considered the issue of range restriction in research design. This omission is likely to lead to underestimates of standardized ethnic group differences (d) when the interview is considered as an initial screening device or used in combination with other initial screening devices. The authors found that 2 forms of a behavioral interview were associated with standardized ethnic group differences of .36 and .56 when corrected for range restriction. These differences are substantially larger than previously thought and demonstrate the importance of considering a variety of study design characteristics in obtaining the appropriate parameter estimates.

Adult↗