The cognitive ability levels of different ethnic groups have interested psychologists for over a century. Many narrative reviews of the empirical literature in the area focus on the Black-White differences, and the reviews conclude that the mean difference in cognitive ability (9) is approximately 1 standard deviation; that is, the generally accepted effect size is about 1.0. We conduct a meta-analytic review that suggests that the one standard deviation effect size accurately summarizes Black-White differences for college application tests (e.g., SAT) and overall analyses of tests of g for job applicants in corporate settings. However, the 1 standard deviation summary of group differences fails to capture many of the complexities in estimating ethnic group differences in employment settings. For example, our results indicate that job complexity, the use of within job versus across job study design, focus on applicant versus incumbent samples, and the exact construct of interest are important moderators of standardized group differences. In many instances, standardized group differences are less than 1 standard deviation. We conduct similar analyses for Hispanics, when possible, and note that Hispanic-White differences are somewhat less than Black-White differences.Ethnic group differences on measures of cognitive ability have been investigated by some of the earliest social science researchers (e.g., Galton, 1892;Thorndike, 1921) and this topic continues to receive a great

Tnis study examined tne effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on goal cnoice and task performnance. Self-efficacy and task strategies were manipulated througn training. Ability, past performance and self-efficacy were the major predictors of goal choice. Ability, selfefficacy, goals and task strategies were all relatad to task performance. Self-efficacy was more strongly related to past performance tian to future performance but was still a

This study examined the effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on goal choice and task performance. Self-efficacy and task strategies were manipulated through training It was found that ability, past performance, and self-efficacy were the major predictors of goal choice Ability, self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies were all related to task performance Self-efficacy was more strongly related to past performance than to future performance but remained a significant predictor of future performance even when past performance was controlled. Self-efficacy ratings for moderate to difficult levels of performance were the best predictors of future performance This finding was "replicated" when two previous goal-setting studies, which had found no positive expectancy-performance relationship across goal groups, were reanalyzed. It was found that expectancy ratings within goal groups were often positively and significantly related to performance; the ratings within the moderate to high goal groups were more highly related to performance than those within the easy or impossible goal groups. It is suggested that the concept of self-efficacy might provide an integrating mechanism between the goal-setting and social-learning-theory approaches to task performance.The effect of goals on task performance has been firmly established in the research literature (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). However, there has been limited research on how goals combine with other factors to determine performance. There is evidence for an interaction between goals and knowledge of progress, with goals plus knowledge leading to better performance than either goals or knowledge alone. Furthermore, there is evidence for an additive effect of money and goals. In addition, participation in setting goals has, in a few cases, led to higher goals being set than was the case when goals were assigned (Locke et al., 1981).Two factors that have not been extensively studied in relation to goal setting are task strategies and self-efficacy. In most goal-setting

A variety of recent articles in the personnel selection literature have used analyses of meta-analytically derived matrices to draw general conclusions for the field. The purpose of this article is to construct a matrix that incorporates as complete information as possible on the relationships among cognitive ability measures, three sets of alternative predictors, and job performance, We build upon a starting matrix used by Schmitt, Rodgers, Chan, Sheppard, and Jennings (1997). Mean differences, by race, for each of the measures and the potential for adverse impact of predictor composites are also considered. We demonstrate that the use of alternative predictors alone to predict job performance (in the absence of cognitive ability) lowers the potential for adverse impact. However, in contrast to recent claims, adverse impact continues to occur at many commonly used selection ratios. Future researchers are encouraged to use our matrix and to expand upon it as new primary research becomes available. We also report and reaffirm many methodological lessons along the way, including the many judgment calls that appear in an effort of this magnitude and a reminder that the field could benefit from even greater conceptual care regarding what is labeled an "alternative predictor." Directions for future meta-analyses and for future primary research activities are also derived. Although cognitive ability has been consistently demonstrated to be a significant, and predictively useful, correlate of job performance (e.g.,

In 2 studies, the researchers compared 5 ways of operationalizing self-efficacy that are commonly found in the literature and assessed the antecedents and consequences of self-efficacy on the basis of A. Bandura's (1986) conceptualization. Results indicated that measuring self-efficacy by using a task-specific, 1-item confidence rating showed the lowest convergent validity with the other selfefficacy operationalizations and showed the least consistency in its correlation with the hypothesized self-efficacy antecedents and outcomes. Furthermore, self-efficacy magnitude and self-efficacy strength (combining all the certainty answers) appeared to be inferior to self-efficacy composites based on combining only the strength items where the magnitude response was "yes, I can perform at that level."