ITEM BIAS INDICES BASED ON TOTAL TEST SCORE AND JOB PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES OF ABILITY
研究比较了两种项目偏差检测方法，发现使用总测验分数时偏差很少，但使用工作绩效匹配时几乎所有项目都出现偏差，并指出工作绩效匹配作为能力指标存在逻辑问题。
Researchers (e.g., Ironson, 1982; Tenopyr, 1990) have suggested that item bias investigators equate subgroups on external criteria such as job performance rather than total test scores before considering subgroup passing rates on test items. In a study comparing these two approaches to studies of item bias, we found little evidence of bias using total test score as the estimate of overall examinee ability, but nearly all items were biased in comparisons of white and African‐American subgroups on Numerical, Verbal, and Mechanical Reasoning tests and in male‐female comparisons on a Mechanical Reasoning test when job performance was used to select “equally able” examinees. However, the use of job performance as the ability index is analogous to performance‐based approaches to test bias (Hartigan & Wigdor, 1989; Thorndike, 1971) and directly equivalent to the Darlington (1971) and Cole (1973) test bias definition, the logical inconsistencies of which have been previously described (Hunter & Schmidt, 1976; Peterson & Novick, 1976). We conclude that performance matching as a basis of forming “equal ability” groups is inappropriate.