Differential Predictability in College Admissions Testing

Brown, Frederick G.; Scott, David A.

doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1967.tb00585.x

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This assumption induced a plethora of investigators to incorporate self-report measures of consistency into their studies (e.g., LaPointe & Harrel, 1978;Lippa & Mash, 1981;Tunnell, 1980;Turner, 1978;Turner & Gilliam, 1979;Vestewig, 1978;Zanna, Olson, & Fazio, 1980), because the discovery of a general moderator variable would represent a major advance in the field of personality assessment (Fiske, 1957;Ghiselli, 1956). The results of our study clearly undermine this conclusion, and thus we must add our present results to the long list of failures in the search for moderators (e.g., Brown & Scott, 1966, 1967Goldberg, 1972;Kellogg, 1968;Strieker, 1966;Wallach & Leggett, 1972).…”

Section: Average Correlations For the Subjects Classified As High And...mentioning

confidence: 66%

A failure to replicate the Bem and Allen study of individual differences in cross-situational consistency.

Chaplin¹,

Goldberg²

1984

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bem and Allen (1974) purportedly found evidence that, by using self-report measures of cross-situational consistency as moderator variables, it was possible to substantially increase the size of correlation coefficients computed among measures of each of two personality traits. The present study was undertaken to (a) replicate the Bem and Allen finding on a larger set of personality traits, (b) determine if the results hold differentially for self-report, other-report, and objective personality measures, and (c) compare different methods for dividing subjects into high and low consistent groups. One hundred twelve subjects (64 men and 48 women) were divided into high and low consistent groups using three different methods. Within each group correlations were computed among and between 6 self-report measures, 10 other-report measures, and when possible a few objective measures, for each of eight traits. In general, none of the methods of consistency classification replicated the Bem and Allen finding. In cases where the high consistent group had a larger average correlation among the measures than their low consistent counterparts, the size of that difference was negligible. Moreover, there were about as many instances in which the low consistent group actually had larger average correlations. Finally, there was essentially no agreement among the various consistency classification methods in dividing subjects into high and low consistent subsamples.

show abstract

Section: Average Correlations For the Subjects Classified As High And...mentioning

confidence: 66%

A failure to replicate the Bem and Allen study of individual differences in cross-situational consistency.

Chaplin¹,

Goldberg²

1984

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cleary (1968) is often cited as an early scholarly pursuit in examining differential prediction of college grades for students of different racial/ethnic backgrounds. However, a few researchers were interested in differential prediction (Abelson, 1952; Brown & Scott, 1967; Gulliksen & Wilks, 1950; Humphreys, 1952) and differential validity (Saunders, 1956; Stanley & Porter, 1967) prior to Cleary's classic study. After Cleary, the study of differential prediction grew in the late 1960s and 1970s (Bartlett & O’Leary, 1969; Bowers, 1970; Goldman & Hewitt, 1975, 1976; Goldman & Richards, 1974; Kallingal, 1971; Lefkowitz, 1972; Pfeifer & Sedlacek, 1971; Temp, 1971; Thomas & Stanley, 1969) and continues to receive serious attention (Norris, Oppler, Kuang, Day, & Adams, 2006; Sireci & Talento‐Miller, 2006; Young, 1990, 1991a, 1991b, 1994; Zwick, 2002; Zwick & Schlemer, 2004).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Differential Prediction of College Grades by Race/Ethnicity with a Multilevel Model

Culpepper

Davenport

2009

J Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research notes the importance of understanding racial/ethnic differential prediction of college grades across multiple institutions. Institutional variation in selection indices is especially important given some states’ laws governing public institutions’ admissions decisions. This paper employed multilevel moderated multiple regression to study the variation of selection indices across 30 institutions and the accuracy of selection indices in predicting college grades for students of different racial/ethnic backgrounds. Several benefits of multilevel models for cross‐institutional differential prediction studies were described and include: controlling for institutional differences in range restriction, providing reliability estimates of least squares estimates, and adjusting criterion scores for differences in coursework difficulty. The findings from this study provide evidence of institutional variation in selection indices, which challenges current laws aimed at standardizing them. Specifically, there was evidence that the predictor slope coefficients varied across institutions, in addition to the estimates that measured intercept differences for African and Asian American students. Across universities, the results mirrored previous findings: high school grade point average (GPA) differentially predicted grades for African Americans, SAT verbal scores differentially predict grades for Asian Americans, and SAT math scores were better predictors of Asian Americans’ grades.

show abstract

“…Perhaps because of this, these moderator effects could seldom be replicated and Ghiselli (1963) eventually concluded that efforts to improve predictive validity should be concentrated on other approaches. For a decade or so moderator variables served primarily as prey for psychometricians, who described a variety of methodological and statistical problems with moderator variable research (e.g.. Brown & Scott, 1966, 1967Goldberg, 1969;Kellogg, 1968;Strieker, 1966;Velicer, 1972).…”

Section: A Brief History Of Moderator Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Next Generation of Moderator Research in Personality Psychology

Chaplin

1991

Journal of Personality

450

326

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of a moderator variable has a long and checkered history in personality psychology. In this article I review the methodological and conceptual advances in recent moderator variable research. I then report the results of a number of empirical analyses of three newly proposed idiographic moderator variables: scalability, metatraits, and construct similarity, as well as the ipsatized variance index. The results of these analyses indicate that moderator effect sizes in personality can be expected to correspond to a correlation of about .10. I then consider two recent prescriptions, (a) aggregating trait-specific moderators into general ones, and (b) evaluating joint (e.g., triple interaction) moderator effects. Following these prescriptions did not increase the size of the moderator effects in these data. I conclude that moderator effects in personality will be small, and will thus be most reliably detected in very large samples with predictors that are strongly related to the criteria. Even small moderator effects can be important and interesting in the context of theory disconfirmation. However, moderator variables generally will not serve to transform weak relations among personality variables into strong ones.

show abstract

Differential Predictability in College Admissions Testing

Cited by 8 publications

References 9 publications

A failure to replicate the Bem and Allen study of individual differences in cross-situational consistency.

A failure to replicate the Bem and Allen study of individual differences in cross-situational consistency.

Assessing Differential Prediction of College Grades by Race/Ethnicity with a Multilevel Model

The Next Generation of Moderator Research in Personality Psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About