Fairness of psychological tests: Implications of four definitions for selection utility and minority hiring

Abstract

Expected utility losses in moving from T. A. Cleary's (1968), R. L. Thorndike's (1971), and R. B. Darlington's (1971) Definition 3 selection fairness models to the quota model were assessed on an interval scale for various combinations of validity, minority base rate, and selection ratio. Expected changes in minority selection ratios across conditions were also determined. Utility losses were shown to be large enough to be of practical significance in many commonly occurring selection situations, although when considered as a percentage of maximum value, utilities remained quite high for the Thorndike and Darlington models. Increases in minority selection ratios across models were more striking than utility losses. Because no accepted method for converting minority selection ratios to utility units exists, and in light of the fact that the legal status of all 4 models is as yet unclear, it is concluded that each personnel researcher or organization must consider the trade-off between utility and the minority selection ratio subjectively and choose the model of selection fairness most consistent with his or its values. (18 ref) (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)