Book contents
- Global Perspectives on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing
- Educational and Psychological Testing in a Global Context
- Global Perspectives on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor Foreword
- Chapter 1 An Introduction to and Summary of Global Perspectives from Twenty-Three Countries on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing
- Chapter 2 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Australia
- Chapter 3 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Belgium
- Chapter 4 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Canada
- Chapter 5 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in China
- Chapter 6 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in France
- Chapter 7 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Germany
- Chapter 8 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Ghana
- Chapter 9 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Greece
- Chapter 10 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in India
- Chapter 11 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Italy
- Chapter 12 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Japan
- Chapter 13 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Mexico
- Chapter 14 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in the Netherlands
- Chapter 15 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Nigeria
- Chapter 16 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Poland
- Chapter 17 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Romania
- Chapter 18 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in South Africa
- Chapter 19 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in South Korea
- Chapter 20 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Spain
- Chapter 21 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Sweden
- Chapter 22 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Türkiye
- Chapter 23 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in the United Kingdom
- Chapter 24 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in the United States
- Index
- References
Chapter 1 - An Introduction to and Summary of Global Perspectives from Twenty-Three Countries on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 November 2025
Book contents
- Global Perspectives on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing
- Educational and Psychological Testing in a Global Context
- Global Perspectives on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor Foreword
- Chapter 1 An Introduction to and Summary of Global Perspectives from Twenty-Three Countries on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing
- Chapter 2 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Australia
- Chapter 3 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Belgium
- Chapter 4 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Canada
- Chapter 5 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in China
- Chapter 6 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in France
- Chapter 7 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Germany
- Chapter 8 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Ghana
- Chapter 9 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Greece
- Chapter 10 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in India
- Chapter 11 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Italy
- Chapter 12 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Japan
- Chapter 13 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Mexico
- Chapter 14 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in the Netherlands
- Chapter 15 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Nigeria
- Chapter 16 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Poland
- Chapter 17 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Romania
- Chapter 18 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in South Africa
- Chapter 19 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in South Korea
- Chapter 20 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Spain
- Chapter 21 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Sweden
- Chapter 22 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in Türkiye
- Chapter 23 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in the United Kingdom
- Chapter 24 Twenty Questions about Employment Testing Bias and Unfairness in the United States
- Index
- References
Summary
The use of tests and assessments in employment-related decision making has the potential to benefit organizations and individuals. However, their use is frequently criticized because of their adverse potential for bias and unfairness. The saliency of and attention to these issues may also vary from one country to another. Therefore, in addition to an overview of the handbook and its objectives, the present chapter presents a synthesis of the twenty-three chapters organized around four themes pertaining to bias and unfairness in employment testing, specifically, (1) historical and/or cultural issues, (2) legal and professional guidelines and issues, (3) psychometric issues, and (4) future- and forward-looking issues. Furthermore, the theory of cultural tightness-looseness is used in an exploratory manner to gain additional insights into patterns, or the lack thereof, across countries as reported in the chapters. The patterns of associations indicated that, relative to tight countries, loose countries were generally more attune to and have in place practices and regulations addressing employment testing bias and unfairness. Finally, some thoughts and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Global Perspectives on the Definition, Assessment, and Reduction of Bias and Unfairness in Employment Testing , pp. 1 - 43Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Author.Google Scholar
Anderson, N., & Witvliet, C. (2008). Fairness reactions to personnel selection methods: An international comparison between the Netherlands, the United States, France, Spain, Portugal, and Singapore. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00404.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1986). Review of developments in meta-analytic method. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boykin, C. M. (2023). Constructs, tape measures, and mercury. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221098078CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, S. (2000). Effects of cultural tightness and collectivism on self-concept and causal attributions. Cross-Cultural Research, 34(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939710003400103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, and Department of Justice. (1978). Adoption by four agencies of uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43, 38290–38315.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Jackson, J. C., Pan, X., Nau, D., Pieper, D., Denison, E., Dagher, M., Van Lange, P. A. M., Chiu, C.-Y., & Wang, M. (2021). The relationship between cultural tightness-looseness and COVID-19 cases and deaths: A global analysis. Lancet Planet Health, 5(3), e135–e144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30301-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1225–1244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1225CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. et al. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1004. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gómez, J. M. (2023). Epistemic oppression, construct validity, and scientific rigor: Commentary on Woo et al. (2022). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(1), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211072830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaschik, S. (2019). A look at the many legal ways wealthy applicants have an edge in admissions. Inside Higher Ed. www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/03/18/look-many-legal-ways-wealthy-applicants-have-edge-admissionsGoogle Scholar
King, E. B., Avery, D. R., & Sackett, P. (2013). Editorial: Three perspectives of employment discrimination 50 years after the Civil Rights Act – A promise fulfilled? Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 375–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9323-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, C. J., Fell, C. B., Steffen, V., & Vanderveken, S. (2015). Applicant reactions are similar across countries: A refined replication with assessment center data from the European Union. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(4), 213–217. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, D. K., & Jiang, J. (1999). Gender bias and the college predictions of the SATs: A cry of despair. Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 375–407. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018759308259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lievens, F. (2008). Research on selection in an international context: Current status and future directions. In Harris, M. M. (Ed.), Handbook of research in international human resource management (pp. 107–123). Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Myors, B., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., Van Hoye, G., Cronshaw, S. F., Mladinic, A., Rodriguez, V., Aguinis, H., Steiner, D. D., Rolland, F., Schuler, H., Frintrup, A., Nikolaou, I., Tomprou, M., Subramony, S., Raj, S. B., Tzafrir, S., Bamerger, P., Bertolino, M., … Sackett, P. R. (2008). International perspectives on the legal environment in selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(2), 206–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00040.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R., & Dahlke, J. A. (2025). Twenty questions about employment testing bias and unfairness in the United States. In Arthur, W. Jr., Doverspike, D., & Schulte, B. D. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of global perspectives on the definition, assessment, and reduction of bias and unfairness in employment testing (pp. 480–502). Cambridge University Press and Assessment.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040–2068. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sánchez, H., & Comeaux, E. (2020). Report of the UC Academic Council Standardized Testing Task Force. https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/sttf/sttfreport.pdfGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, W., Sackett, P. R., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., Van Hoye, G., Steiner, D. D., Rolland-Sayah, F., Georgiou, K., Nikolaou, I., Tomprou, M., Tzafrir, S., Bamberger, P., Bertolino, M., Mariani, M., Fraccaroli, F., Sekiguchi, T., Onyura, B., Yang, H., Oostrom, J. K., … Cook, M. (2017). Updated perspectives on the international legal environment for selection. In Farr, J. L. & Tippins, N. T. (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (2nd ed., pp. 659–677). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) (2018). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (5th ed.). SIOP.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uz, I. (2015). The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(3), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114563611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villani, C. (2018). Donner un sens à l’intelligence artificielle: Pour une stratégie nationale et européenne [For a meaningful artificial intelligence: Towards a French and European strategy]. La Documentation française. https://bit.ly/43hW03rGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.