Presented are the methodology and results of an equipercentile equating study in which subtests of the following three editions of multiple aptitude test batteries, in widespread use in 1960, were equated to the tests of the Project TALENT test battery: Flanagan Aptitude Classification Tests (1957); Differential Aptitude Tests (1947) and; the…

Analyzes the practice of race norming (adapting test scores on the basis of race/ethnicity) and its justification. Outlines the background of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which prohibited race norming, and considers future implications for recruitment and selection. (SK)

Occupational norms exist for some tests, and differences in the distributions of test scores by occupation are evident. Sampling error (SE), situationally specific factors (SSFs), and differences in job content (DIJCs) were explored as possible reasons for the observed differences. SE was explored by analyzing 742 validity studies performed by the…

Reviews the evaluation by the National Academy of Science (NAS) of the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB), which was developed to predict the job performance of potential employees. Proposes that the NAS recommendation to correct the GATB's racial bias by "race-norming" was a political decision and not scientifically justified. (FMW)

This paper reviews the now massive general literature showing that psychological tests are fair to minorities. This literature shows that there is no single group validity, there is no differential validity, and tests overpredict rather than underpredict minority job performance. Further evidence in regard to blacks is introduced from 51…

Reviews the literature on subgroup norming in testing and examines several types of score-adjustment methods. The authors discuss social and policy perspectives as well as the scientific and theoretical underpinnings of score adjustment. (GLR)

Focuses on score adjustment by racial or ethnic group (race norming) in employment testing, and provides a history of the original controversy. The author analyzes race-based adjustments in test scores and discusses how personnel-selection science is being compromised in an effort to reconcile contradictory legal demands. (GLR)