Multiple, speeded assessments: Initial evidence on subgroup differences and applicant perceptions

Abstract

AbstractRecently, shorter assessments have emerged as potential alternatives for more resourceful traditional selection approaches. Multiple, speeded assessments (MSAs) represent such an alternative. In MSAs, candidates participate in a large number of short (a maximum of 5 min), behavioral simulations in which they face a variety of job situations. Initial psychometric evidence on the validity of MSAs is promising. Yet, validity represents only one piece of evidence. It is not known whether MSAs disadvantage specific subgroups, which may inhibit diversity. There is also no information on candidates' experience of going through an MSA, which is pivotal for the attractiveness of the organization's selection process. Therefore, this study investigates an MSA in terms of subgroup differences (gender and nationality) and applicant perceptions. Master of Business Administration (MBA) students (N = 96) proceeded through 18 short role‐plays sampling junior management situations. Score differences between men and women were negligible. Yet, there were large score differences between national citizens and foreigners. There was no evidence for predictive bias for nationality, though. Of the applicant reaction measures, interpersonal treatment perceptions contributed most to overall fairness perceptions. These findings add to the evidence in support of MSAs, while also stressing to remain vigilant for potential score differences among subgroups.