Researchers administered a range of tests to a sample of young and less educated Māori and European people. As well as getting test results the researchers asked these people how they liked the tests. They didn’t like them (Jenni Ogden and colleagues, 2003).
Maybe people you know, or even you, may be ambivalent about testing.
One possible concern is whether testing is fair. Do tests favour people like those who develop the tests – who are more likely to be the product of a ‘Western’ educational system, to be white and until recently, male.
A 2003 report by Tamara Packman (now Tamara Sallis) and colleagues reviewed personality test results of Māori, European and Pasifika samples. These people were tested with the well developed 15FQ+ personality test in selection or assessment conditions. There were differences between these ethnic groups. But were the differences material?
The researchers focused on two of the ‘Big Five’ personality traits that have been demonstrated to distinguish good performers in a range of jobs. There was no difference between the groups on the ‘conscientiousness’ dimension. It seems that conscientiousness is similarly represented in all three cultures.
Conscientiousness is an important concept in Māori culture – witness such whakatauki as:
Moea he tangata ringa raupa (Marry a man with calloused hands).
There was a difference between the groups on the second job-relevant trait – of neuroticism (the research suggests that less neuroticism or more ‘emotional stability’ contributes to higher work performance). Māori and Pasifika scored higher than Europeans on this dimension, indicating generally higher levels of emotional reactivity. This could be interpreted in terms of ongoing oppression, such as frequent micro-aggressions experienced by Māori and Pasifika people.
The higher level of Māori and Pasifika people’s emotionality was a real difference, but the authors point out that a difference in the mean scores of groups of 0.5 of a standard deviation is equal to one standard score on a 10-point (‘sten’) scale. The difference between both the Māori and Pasifika groups and the Europeans were about 0.3 of a standard deviation. So only a small effect. Although still an issue to be taken into account in making selection decisions.
Another study in 2003 looked at the performance of young, less educated Māori and European people on tests of cognitive ability. This is the study mentioned in the first paragraph. Jenni Ogden and colleagues from the University of Auckland wanted to ensure a fair basis for diagnosing the impact of traumatic brain injury.
A previous study had found that young Māori men did better on the Block Design test of the WAIS-R (the revised version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) – demonstrating a higher level of visuospatial reasoning on average (this sample achieved results one standard deviation above the mean of the standardisation sample). In contrast, the average results of this group of Māori men was below the mean level of the standardisation sample on the Vocabulary test of the WAIS-R.
Clinicians use the difference between the Block Design and the Vocabulary tests as an indicator of brain damage. The Vocabulary test is usually a good indicator of general intelligence and is less affected by brain damage. Visuospatial reasoning is more likely to be affected by brain damage – measured by the Block Design test. If a clinician was assessing a young Māori male who had achieved similar results on the Vocabulary and Block Design tests they could assume that brain function was intact. However, that assumption would not be reasonable with young Māori men. An individual with this background who had no brain damage would achieve a Block Design score ahead of their Vocabulary score.
In their follow-up study, Ogden and her colleagues found that Māori did worse on the Vocabulary test than similar European (in terms of age and educational background). But this difference was not seen when the researchers adapted the Vocabulary test to include Māori words.
The value of using psychological tests is not that they are, or claim to be, totally fair. The value is in the transparency of the approach. Differences in test results resulting from background factors such as ethnicity can be measured. Importantly, such impact can be adjusted for, as in the interpretation of higher neuroticism scores for Māori candidates. Or, changes in test design, such as Ogden and her colleagues found, can reduce these risks.
In contrast, conscious or unconscious bias (which New Zealand research has shown to be in play, for example in recruiter’s screening CVs – see Marie Wilson’s 2005 paper on ethnic bias) is hidden and pervasive.
Psychological testing, completed with eyes wide open and a critical perspective can contribute to greater fairness in important decisions about people.
Stewart Forsyth is an organisational psychologist and executive coach and also the author of 21 Remarkable People – available from Amazon or Apple or other eBook sources.