A critical re‐examination and analysis of cognitive ability tests using the Thorndike model of fairness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature investigating the bias of cognitive ability tests (CATs) is often conflated with the controversy surrounding which method for determining test bias is superior. The general acceptance of the Cleary (1968) model of test bias in industrial/organizational psychology has served to deter evaluations of tests against other models of test bias because acceptance of the Cleary model as ‘superior’ implies the limited relevance of investigations of tests against other models of bias. Although these other models are not considered to be models of predictive bias in the psychometric sense, they nonetheless have significant implications for workplace diversity. Most notably, the existing literature lacks the precision and depth necessary to extrapolate the actual false‐rejection rate in selection decisions that burden visible minority groups when CATs are used. The current study identifies these gaps in the literature in addition to evaluating CATs against the Thorndike (1971) model of test bias. Results indicate that a one standard deviation (SD) difference in Black‐White CAT scores is associated with a Black‐White difference in job performance of approximately 1/3 SD. The Black‐White difference in job performance is reduced to approximately 1/10 SD when objective, rather than subjective, job performance criteria are used. We therefore conclude that CATs are biased against Blacks when evaluated using the Thorndike model. The implications for use of CATs in personnel selection are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it