Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores (Herde, et. al., 2020)
Set up a username and password to take this course for free (no credit card needed)
| Reference Title: | Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores (Herde, et. al., 2020) |
| Author: | Herde, Lievens, Jackson, Shalfrooshan, and Roth |
| Publication Type: | Journal Article |
| Publication Date: | 2020 |
| Course Level: | Advanced |
| Credits: | 1 |
| Price: | $0.00 |
| About This Course: | Current estimates of subgroup differences in situational judgment tests (SJTs) are overwhelmingly based on range-restricted incumbent samples that are downwardly biased. This study provides applicant level estimates of SJT subgroup differences. |
1. Overview of this CE program (top)
This home study course entails the independent study of "Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores: Evidence from large applicant samples" (Herde, Lievens, Jackson, Shalfrooshan, and Roth, 2020), followed by the completion of a multiple-choice test on-line. Participants who receive a passing grade of 75% or higher on the test will receive 1 CE credit. In accordance with guidance from the APA CE office, we are limiting the number of chances to take the test to 2 times. Participants who fail the test may retake the test once at no additional charge, and receive CE credit if they do pass.
A copy of the reading for this course is available at the Wiley Online Library web site.
More detailed information on the content of this article is given in section 2h below.
APR Testing Services is approved by the American Psychological Association to sponsor continuing education for psychologists. APR Testing Services maintains responsibility for this program and its content.
2.a Educational Objectives (top)
Upon completion of this home study program, the participant will be able to:
- Describe the methodology used in this study.
- Describe, numerically, the size of the black-white standardized mean difference in Situational Judgement Test scores for job applicants.
- Describe, numerically, the reliability of the Situational Judgement Tests used in this study.
- Compare the black-white standardized mean difference in Situational Judgement Test scores for job incumbents and applicants.
- Compare the male-female standardized mean difference in Situational Judgement Test scores for job incumbents and applicants.
- Explain the reasons for the differences between the black-white standardized mean difference in Situational Judgement Test scores for job incumbents and applicants.
- Explain the reasons for the differences between the male-female standardized mean difference in Situational Judgement Test scores for job incumbents and applicants.
2.b Target Audience (top)
2.c Schedule (top)
Access to program registration and post-test is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
2.d Cost and Refund/Cancellation Policy (top)
2.e Author Credentials (top)
This article was authored by Christopher Herde from Ghent University, Filip Lievens from Singapore Management University, and Duncan Jackson from King’s College London, among others.
2.f Number of CE Credits Offered (top)
Participants who complete this course by taking and passing the multiple-choice test will receive 1 CE credit.
2.g Location and Format (top)
This activity requires independent home-based study of "Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores: Evidence from large applicant samples" (Herde, Lievens, Jackson, Shalfrooshan, and Roth, 2020). Following completion of the reading material, participants complete an Internet-based multiple-choice post-test on the content of the material.
2.h Detailed Description of Program Material (top)
Publication citation:
Herde, Lievens, Jackson, Shalfrooshan, & Roth (2020). Subgroup differences in situational judgment test scores: Evidence from large applicant samples. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(1), 45-54.
From the reading:
To promote diversity in organizations it is important to have accurate knowledge about subgroup differences associated with selection procedures. However, current estimates of subgroup differences in situational judgment tests (SJTs) are overwhelmingly based on range-restricted incumbent samples that are downwardly biased. This study provides much-needed applicant level estimates of SJT subgroup differences (N = 37,530). As a key finding, Black-White differences (d = 0.66) were higher than in incumbent samples (d = 0.38). Overall, sex differences were small. Females scored higher for management jobs (d = -0.13) and males scored higher for administrative jobs (d = 0.15). By analyzing applicant samples that do not suffer from range restriction, this study adds knowledge about subgroup differences in SJTs.