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.

中文翻译：

---

使用替代预测方法是否会减少亚组差异？这取决于构造

本研究使用基本的荟萃分析检查了使用普遍认为的替代预测方法作为减少亚组差异的手段（即方法改变方法）的有效性，同时考虑了评估的结构。重点关注评估中心、访谈、情境判断测试和工作样本作为替代方法，结果表明，与构念/方法区别相一致，一种方法在减少亚组差异方面的有效性取决于所评估的构念。具体来说，与替代方法相比，白人-非洲裔美国人亚组差异更大，有利于白人在纸笔测试中的认知结构；最值得注意的是，非认知结构获得了相反的结果，例如，与纸笔评估相比，对于替代方法，观察到了更大的白人-非裔美国人亚组差异。尽管基于较少数量的数据点，但白人-西班牙裔比较获得了类似的结果模式。总而言之，该研究的结果表明，普遍声称的方法改变方法在减少亚组差异方面的有效性被夸大了，所述有效性取决于评估的结构。