Does the use of alternative predictor methods reduce subgroup differences? It depends on the construct
通过元分析发现，用评估中心、面试等替代方法减少种族子群体差异的效果取决于所测量的构念：对认知构念有效，但对非认知构念反而可能扩大差异。
Abstract Using a bare‐bones meta‐analysis, the present study examined the effectiveness of the use of commonly considered alternative predictor methods as a means to reduce subgroup differences (i.e., the method‐change approach), taking into account the constructs assessed. With a focus on assessment centers, interviews, situational judgment tests, and work samples as alternative methods, the results indicated that consonant with the construct/method distinction, the effectiveness of a method in reducing subgroup differences is a function of the constructs assessed. Specifically, there are larger White‐African American subgroup differences that favor Whites for cognitive constructs on paper‐and‐pencil tests compared to the alternative methods; and most notably, the opposite result was obtained for noncognitive constructs such that, compared to paper‐and‐pencil assessments, substantially larger White‐African American subgroup differences were observed for alternative methods. A similar pattern of results was obtained for White‐Hispanic comparisons, albeit based on a smaller number of data points. In summary, the study's results indicate that the ubiquitously asserted effectiveness of the method‐change approach for reducing subgroup differences is overstated, with said effectiveness depending on the construct assessed.