Forming Composites of Cognitive Ability and Alternative Measures to Predict Job Performance and Reduce Adverse Impact: Corrected Estimates and Realistic Expectations

Although there has been empirical attention paid to the criterion‐related validity of predictor composites, there has been much less attention paid to the standardized ethnic group differences associated with these composites. One important area of inquiry in predictor composite research is the influence of adding predictors to a test of general mental ability. The limited empirical literature on this practice is mixed, but the prevailing expectation is that there is likely to be higher validity and less adverse impact. Unfortunately, much of the previous work is limited by the presence of inaccurate validity and standardized ethnic group difference values. In this analysis we formed meta‐analytic matrices to more accurately estimate the validity and standardized ethnic group differences of several composites that combine a measure of cognitive ability with measures of conscientiousness, a structured interview, or biodata. While results were somewhat complex, we found that adding alternative predictors does not result in a situation in which validity automatically goes up and adverse impact potential automatically goes down. In fact, the reductions in adverse impact (if any) from adding “non‐cognitive” predictors were more modest than much of the literature suggests.