The NLSY Kinship Links: Using the NLSY79 and NLSY-Children Data to Conduct Genetically-Informed and Family-Oriented Research.

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth datasets (NLSY79; NLSY-Children/Young Adults; NLSY97) have extensive family pedigree information contained within them. These data sources are based on probability sampling, a longitudinal design, and a cross-generational and within-family data structure, with hundreds of phenotypes relevant to behavior genetic (BG) researchers, as well as to other developmental and family researchers. These datasets provide a unique and powerful source of information for BG researchers. But much of the information required for biometrical modeling has been hidden, and has required substantial programming effort to uncover-until recently. Our research team has spent over 20 years developing kinship links to genetically inform biometrical modeling. In the most recent release of kinship links from two of the NLSY datasets, the direct kinship indicators included in the 2006 surveys allowed successful and unambiguous linking of over 94 % of the potential pairs. In this paper, we provide details for research teams interested in using the NLSY data portfolio to conduct BG (and other family-oriented) research.

Hispanic and Asian performance on selection procedures: A narrative and meta-analytic review of 12 common predictors.

Hispanics are both the largest and fastest growing minority group in the U.S. workforce. Asians also make up a substantial and increasing portion of the workforce. Unfortunately, empirical research on how these groups perform selection procedures appears to be lacking. To address this critical gap, we identified and reviewed research from a variety of literatures relevant to Hispanic and/or Asian performance on 12 commonly used staffing procedures. We also contacted authors of studies that included members of these subgroups and requested the relevant data. On the basis of our review, we provide updated estimates of Hispanic-White and Asian-White differences for the predictors, which often differ from existing estimates of these differences. Further, we provide the first known meta-analytic estimates for Hispanics and Asians on many predictors, such as vocational interests and physical ability. We discuss the implications of the findings for staffing research and practice. We also identify critical next steps for future research regarding these 2 important, yet largely neglected, groups. (PsycINFO Database Record

Differential validity for cognitive ability tests in employment and educational settings: not much more than range restriction?

The concept of differential validity suggests that cognitive ability tests are associated with varying levels of validity across ethnic groups, such that validity is lower in certain ethnic subgroups than in others. A recent meta-analysis has revived the viability of this concept. Unfortunately, data were not available in this meta-analysis to correct for range restriction within ethnic groups. We reviewed the differential validity literature and conducted 4 studies. In Study 1, we empirically demonstrated that using a cognitive ability test with a common cutoff decreases variance in test scores of Black subgroup samples more than in White samples. In Study 2, we developed a simulation that examined the effects of range restriction on estimates of differential validity. Results demonstrated that different levels of range restriction for subgroups can explain the apparent observed differential validity results in employment and educational settings (but not military settings) when no differential validity exists in the population. In Study 3, we conducted a simulation in which we examined how one corrects for range restriction affects the accuracy of these corrections. Results suggest that the correction approach using a common range restriction ratio for various subgroups may create or perpetuate the illusion of differential validity and that corrections are most accurate when done within each subgroup. Finally, in Study 4, we conducted a simulation in which we assumed differential validity in the population. We found that range restriction artificially increased the size of observed differential validity estimates when the validity of cognitive ability tests was assumed to be higher among Whites. Overall, we suggest that the concept of differential validity may be largely artifactual and current data are not definitive enough to suggest such effects exist.

Updating the trainability tests literature on Black-White subgroup differences and reconsidering criterion-related validity.

A number of applied psychologists have suggested that trainability test Black­White ethnic group differences are low or relatively low (e.g., Siegel & Bergman, 1975), though data are scarce. Likewise, there are relatively few estimates of criterion-related validity for trainability tests predicting job performance (cf. Robertson & Downs, 1989). We review and clarify the existing (and limited) literature on Black­White group differences on trainability tests, provide new trainability test data from a recent video-based trainability exam, and present archival data about how trainability test scores relate to cognitive ability, Black­White differences, and job performance. Consistent with hypotheses, our results suggest large correlations of trainability tests with cognitive ability (e.g., .80) and larger standardized ethnic group differences than previously thought (ds of 0.86, 1.10, and 1.21 for 3 samples). Results also suggest that trainability tests have higher validity than previously thought. Overall, our analysis provides a substantial amount of data to update our understanding of the use of trainability tests in personnel selection.