Applicant and Method Factors Related to Ethnic Score Differences in Personnel Selection: A Study at the Dutch Police

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine applicant and method factors related to ethnic score differences on a cognitive ability test, a personality test, an assessment center (AC), an employment interview, and a final employment recommendation in the context of police officer selection (N = 13,526). Score differences between the majority group and the first-generation minority groups were comparable to research findings from the literature. However, score differences between the majority group and second-generation minority groups were much smaller. On the cognitive ability test and the personality test most variability was explained by Dutch language-proficiency. Confirming assumed-characteristics theory, more variability on the interview and the employment recommendation was explained by Dutch language-proficiency and education than on the AC. Unsupportive of complexity-extremity theory, there seemed to be a general tendency to give lower scores to the ethnic minority group.The personnel selection literature has extensively investigated differences on psychological measures between ethnic minority and majority groups. This study focuses on ethnicity-related applicant demographics, such as language-proficiency and education, and their interplay with selection-method factors in their impact on test scores.

Personality of South African Police Trainees

“…Since the successful completion of Grade 12 is a prerequisite for becoming a South African Police Service member, the assumption is that English language competence levels have already been assessed. Furthermore, in a study investigating the relationship between language proficiency and results on a personality test in personnel selection, Dutch police applicants including six different ethnic groups had a standardized path coefficient between the variables of just .08 (De Meijer, Born, Terlouw, & van der Molen, 2006). These arguments suggest that the results relating to a possible bias because of subjectively reported difficulties with English language should not be overinterpreted.…”

International comparison of group differences in general mental ability for immigrants versus non‐immigrants

“…In addition to the extent of GMA saturation in test content, generational status also influences immigrant test scores. de Meijer et al () found larger differences in favor of non‐immigrants with first‐generation immigrants and smaller differences with second‐generation applicants. Similarly, a meta‐analysis by te Nijenhuis et al () found immigrant and non‐immigrant groups differed by between one‐half and one full standard deviation, depending on the verbal and g saturation of the subtest, the immigrant group compared to, and the length of stay in the country (e.g., second‐generation immigrants generally score higher than first‐generation immigrants).…”

“…Despite the growth in immigration and the potential value of understanding the contribution of immigrant research on adverse impact, few studies have researched these groups and GMA testing. The majority of research comparing immigrant and non‐immigrant scores on GMA tests has been conducted in the Netherlands (de Meijer, Born, Terlouw, & van der Molen, ; te Nijenhuis & van der Flier, ). Cognitive subtests that strongly measure general intelligence show large mean differences between immigrants and majority members; subtests that less strongly measure general intelligence show smaller mean differences (te Nijenhuis & van der Flier, ; te Nijenhuis, Willigers, Dragt, & van der Flier, ).…”

“…So what is it about generational status that accounts for immigrant and non‐immigrant test score differences? Research has identified several factors that account for these GMA test score differences, such as educational quality for students (Rindermann & Thompson, ) and language skills for adults (de Meijer et al, ; te Nijenhuis & van der Flier, ). Other factors that may improve after immigration and contribute to GMA include income (Cottrell, Newman, & Roisman, ) and nutrition (Benton & Roberts, ; Bleichrodt & Born, ; Wachs et al, ).…”

Selectors' Decision Strategies when Assessing Immigrant Job Applicants

“…Although a large number of empirical studies indicate that selection instruments show no cultural bias, they also point at the existence of language bias in subtests of IQ batteries with a substantial language component, and in scales of personality questionnaires that use difficult words or expressions that immigrants are unfamiliar with (e.g., te Nijenhuis & van der Flier, ; te Nijenhuis et al, ; van Leest, ). Other studies suggest that selection instruments contain both cultural bias and language bias against immigrants (de Meijer, Born, Terlouw, & van der Molen, ; Helms‐Lorenz, van de Vijver, & Poortinga, ; Wicherts & Dolan, ). So there appears a general agreement among researchers that language bias plays a role in selection instruments, although there is a disagreement about the size of the effect.…”