Examined 13 research studies dealing with differences between negroes and caucasians in the validity of employment and training selection procedures. It was found that 100 of the 160 validity coefficients computed were not significant for either group, indicating the need for validation prior to operational use. Significant differences in the coefficients between groups were found only in 7 instances. Statistical significance of single group validity occurred in 33 instances. The combination of ethnic groups yielded lower validity than for either group separately on only 3 out of 120 instances. It is concluded that there is very little evidence of differential validity. Single-group validity appears linked to the use of ratings (rather than more objective criterion measures), and small samples. (25 ref.)

Thirty-one studies involving the validity of employment and training selection procedures for blacks and whites were examined. Each pair of validity coefficients from these studies was determined to be based or not be based on each of the following desirable methodological practices: (a) use of a total number of 50 or more for both black and white subsamples, (b) use of a criterion for research purposes only, and (c) use of a predictor chosen for its potential relationship to the criterion being predicted. From these data, each study was scored for adherence to the three desirable practices. There was a significant relationship between the validity outcome of the studies and the methodological practices score. In addition, in studies in which some validity was obtained, those whose authors reported the study as supporting the differential validity concept received significantly lower methodological practices scores. It was concluded that reported findings of differential prediction can largely be regarded as methodological artifacts.

Data concerning current management level at the end of 1973 were obtained for 4,846 women assessed between 1Q63 and 1971. Performance at the assessment center was strongly related to subsequent promotions into management and advancement within management. The distribution of the women's assessment ratings was very similar to a corresponding distribution for men assessed using the same techniques. The assessed dimensions (e.g., organizing and planning, decision making, and leadership) relating most strongly to subsequent management level were the same for men and women. Assessment-center methods appear valid for the selection of women managers and do not result in the promotion of proportionately fewer women assessees.

Development applications of assessment centres represent an emerging and exciting area for human resources practitioners interested in maximising the benefits of such centres to their organisations and the people who work in them. Five applications are emerging: the use of assessment centre feedback, in itself, as a management development tool; early identification of high potential development programmes; use of centres for diagnosing strengths/weaknesses and devising individual training and development programmes; service as an assessor and as a developmental experience; and the centre as a tool for organisational planning/development.

Research in Industrial/Organizational Psychology has been primarily based on a traditional model of scientific inquiry developed as an outgrowth of research in the physical sciences. The premise of this paper is that this traditional model of research frequently does not fit the realities of applied I/O research in “real world” settings and, when pursued exclusively, operates to limit progress in the field. An alternative research model, based on the realities of “what is,” rather than on the ideal of “what should be” is proposed, and examples of lines of inquiry where this alternative model might have utility are provided. The traditional and alternative models are viewed as mutually supportive and jointly capable of producing advances in I/O psychology which cannot be achieved by either method in isolation.