The inflow of immigrants challenges organizations to consider alternative selection procedures that reduce potential minority (immigrants)-majority (natives) differences, while maintaining valid predictions of performance. To deal with this challenge, this paper proposes response format as a practically and theoretically relevant factor for situational judgment tests (SJTs). We examine a range of response format categories (from traditional multiple-choice formats to more innovative constructed response formats) and conceptually link these response formats to mechanisms underlying minority-majority differences. Two field experiments are conducted with SJTs. Study 1 (274 job seekers) contrasts minority-majority differences in scores on a multiple-choice versus a written constructed response format. Written constructed responses produce much smaller minority-majority differences (d = .28 vs. d = .92). In Study 2 (269 incumbents), scores on a written constructed versus an audiovisual constructed format are compared. The audiovisual format further reduces minority-majority differences (d = .09 vs. d = .41), with validities remaining the same. Results are suggestive of cognitive load as a contributor to the reduction in minority-majority differences, as are rater effects: Scores of raters evaluating transcribed audiovisual responses, which anonymized test takers, produce larger differences. In sum, altering response modality via more realistic response formats (i.e., the audiovisual constructed format) leads to significant reductions in minority-majority differences without impairing criterion-related validity. Implications for selection theory and practice are discussed.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
Part of the funding for the studies reported came from a PhD fellowship of the Research Foundation-Flanders (1162012N) and from the SIOP Foundation via the 2014 Adverse Impact Reduction Research Initiative and Action (AIRRIA) grant. We are indebted to Anne Marie Ryan for her excellent suggestions on a draft of this paper. We also thank Christoph N. Herde and Pat Sackett for their editorial assistance.
Portions of this paper were presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), Houston, Texas. Part of the funding for the studies reported came from a PhD fellowship of the Research Foundation–Flanders (1162012N) and from the SIOP Foundation via the 2014 Adverse Impact Reduction Research Initiative and Action (AIRRIA) grant. We are indebted to Anne Marie Ryan for her excellent suggestions on a draft of this paper. We also thank Christoph N. Herde and Pat Sackett for their editorial assistance.
- Response format
- Situational judgment tests
- Subgroup differences