{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04381161007667032, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018619934282584884, 'mean_word_length': 5.4822695035460995, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Subgroup Differences in Situational Judgment Test Scores: Evidence from Large Applicant Samples

To promote diversity in organizations it is important to have accurate knowledge about subgroup differences associated with selection procedures. However, current estimates of subgroup differences in situational judgment tests (SJTs) are overwhelm‐ingly based on range‐restricted incumbent samples that are downwardly biased. This study provides much‐needed applicant level estimates of SJT subgroup differences (N = 37,530). As a key finding, Black‐White differences (d = 0.66) were higher than in incumbent samples (d = 0.38). Overall, sex differences were small. Females scored higher for management jobs (d = −0.13) and males scored higher for administrative jobs (d = 0.15). By analyzing applicant samples that do not suffer from range restric‐tion, this study adds knowledge about subgroup differences in SJTs.