An Evaluation of Two Strategies for Reducing Adverse Impact and Their Effects on Criterion-Related Validity

Abstract This research explores two strategies for reducing adverse impact and their effects on criterion-related validity. The first strategy involved assessing a broad range of both cognitive and noncognitive abilities that were identified via a thorough job analysis using a Biodata Measure, Situational Judgment Test, Structured Interview, and Verbal Ability Test. The second strategy involved developing alternative measures of verbal ability that more closely mirrored the behavioral requirements of the job than traditional multiple-choice measures of this construct. Specifically, the validity and subgroup differences associated with a video-administered writing test and a written problem exercise were compared to a traditional multiple-choice verbal ability measure. Predictor and criterion data were collected from 456 participants (259 White, 100 African American, and 97 Hispanic). Although both strategies resulted in reductions in subgroup differences, somewhat larger reductions were observed for the broad-based ability assessment approach. In addition, validity was substantially increased by inclusion of measures that tapped the full array of abilities compared to the validity resulting from the Verbal Ability Test alone. With respect to the levels of validity observed for the alternative verbal ability measures, somewhat lower levels of validity were associated with reductions in subgroup differences. Results and implications are discussed.