Presentation of research identifying differences in test scores for Native Americans

1. Native Americans and Organizational Assessments: Exploring Diversity IssuesScott Davies, Ph.D.sdavies@tribaloperations.com Walden University 1

3. Number of published studies with any emphasis on Native Americans in HR research journals in past 50 years: 15

4. Number of test publishers with Native Americans adequately represented as a subgroup in validation evidence or norms: fewer than 5

5. Number of SIOP research presentations with any emphasis on Native Americans in past 25 years: 0

6. Why have we historically ignored Native Americans?

7. Legalities: Not usually considered as a protected class

8. Numbers : Percent of national workforce too small to make meaningful impact to research

9. Resources: Too few to attract interest from major consulting businesses

10. Research interests and opportunities: Limited interest from tribes or researchers

11. What has happened to draw attention to Native Americans now?

12. Business needs of tribes: Many tribes are now large organizations who need strategic, research based HR services

13. Resources: Have grown with organizational size

14. Research interests and opportunities: Some of us are tired of seeing Native Americans ignored and have worked to create research opportunities with tribes2

16. Construct differences

17. Validity differences

18. Score differences

19. Interactions of these differences with other variables

20. Theories explaining differences

21. We do know that Native Americans, as a group:

22. hold a special place in our history and deserve attention

23. have not been as successful in the US workforce as have other groups

24. suffer from a high prevalence of negative factors such as addictions

25. are not gaining on other groups, according to accepted criteria indicating change for future positive outcomes, such as academic success

27. Nuby & Oxford (1996). Learning style preferences of Native American and African American students as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type IndicatorPace et al., (2006) A Cultural-Contextual Perspective on the Validity of the MMPI-2 With American IndiansNelson, S., Greenough, R., and Sage, N. (2009). Achievement gap patterns of grade 8 American Indian and Alaska Native students in reading and mathDavis, Hoffman, & Nelson (1990). Differences between Native Americans and Whites on the California Psychological Inventory. Thompson & Herk (2010). Persistent Personality Differences on the CPI.Davies, Wadlington, and Frederick (2010). Exploring Differences in Personality Test Scores and Occupational Interests for Native Americans.Belinsky & Davies (2010). Native American Jobs and Job Satisfaction in a Multi-Organization Archival Database 5 Existing empirical studies show group differences for Native Americans on standardized assessments

28. Myers Briggs Type Indicator Differences Nuby & Oxford (1996) determined that culture was a major determinant of MBTI score differences across groups, and these differences impact differences in learning approaches for Native Americans. This is an indication of bias in the test instrument... 6

29. MMPI Differences Pace et al., (2006) found elevated scores on 8 of 13 MMPI scales and stated:“Elevated MMPI-2 scores of American Indians may not only reflect the possibility of psychological distress spurred by historical oppression and present adversity, but also an expression of a divergent worldview. Considering the context of the historical and social production of knowledgeabout American Indians, it is argued that researchers and practitioners, when interpreting MMPI-2 results for American Indians, should seriously consider their interpretive points of reference, which may be impacted by dominant cultural belief systems.”It is also possible that the MMPI is biased… 7

30. Math and reading achievement test differences Nelson, Greenough, and Sage, N. (2009) analyzed National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data from 26 states with significant numbers of NA children and found:“Results show achievement gaps between American Indianand Alaska Native students and all other students at both grade levels in both reading and math. In reading, the achievement gap in grade 8 was 14 percentage points in 2005 and 18 percentage points in 2007—an increase of 4 percentage points. The achievement gap in math in grade 8 increased 3 percentagepoints, with a 16 percentage point difference in 2005 and a 19 percentage point difference in 2007.”This is potential test bias… 8

31. Across two studies and 20 years, Davis, Hoffman, & Nelson (1990), Thompson & Herk (2010) found Standard Score Differences on the CPI 260™ Folk Scales Motivation And Thinking Styles Personal Characteristics Self-Management Dealing with Others Circled mean differences are statistically significant, and are in the range of moderate effect sizes per Cohen, 1988, 1992 9

32. These two studies also found Standard Score Differences on the CPI 260™ Folk Scales Work Related Measures Vectors Circled mean differences are statistically significant, and are in the range of moderate effect sizes per Cohen, 1988, 1992 10

33. Conclusions from CPI studies There were a number of moderately sized differences between the two samples Generally, the Native Americans scores were lower, but not more than about ½ of a standard deviation In both studies the effect was more pronounced for female Native Americans than for males Suggests that caution needs to be used when interpreting CPI 260 results with Native American respondents, particularly females Further research is needed to determine if the results found here are a result of the sample, or if there are persistent differences between the two ethnic groups, and if so, why those differences seem to exist 11

34. Discussion of CPI results What drives these differences? Acculturation, norm differences, and role differences (Davis et al., 1990) Lack of familiarity with, or cultural stigmatization towards, certain occupational interests or activities (Epperson & Hammond, 1981) Do differences in values between Native Americans and other ethnic groups manifest as meaningful differences in constructs such as occupation interest and personality? Culturally-fair instruments will remove or account for such differences 12

35. Existing cross-cultural research on job characteristics and work attitudes 13 Davies and Belinsky (2010) examined differences between Native Americans and other race groups in perceptions of job characteristics, job satisfaction and relationships between these variables in a large scale multi-0rganization archival database Overall job satisfaction (as measured by the Job Descriptive Index; JDI, Smith et al., 1969) Job Characteristics Model (JCM; Hackman & Oldham, 1976) A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine job satisfaction differences across all ethnicities Fisher’s Z was computed to compare the JCM and job satisfaction correlations across Native American and White groups

36. Results from job satisfaction studies No statistically significant differences in job satisfaction across groups, but the mean scores for the Native American group were meaningfully lower than the other groups Correlations with job satisfaction for all but one JCM variable (i.e., Production of Visible Outcomes; Fisher’s Z = 1.57, p > .05) were significantly lower for the Native American group than for the White group The significantly smaller relationships between job satisfaction and job characteristics places in question the construct validity of one or all of these constructs for the Native American/Alaskan group 14

37. Discussion What explains differences in job satisfaction? Employee differences in disposition (House, Shane, & Herold, 1996) Personality traits (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002) Core self-evaluation (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998) Job satisfaction was significantly correlated with each Job Characteristics Model (JCM) variable The results suggest that the job satisfaction of Native Americans—not significantly different from that of other ethnic groups—is not influenced as greatly by job characteristics as it is for other race groups 15

38. Conclusions Although this study found relative equivalence in job satisfaction between racial groups, some influences on job satisfaction could be more important for Native Americans than for other racial groups Because job characteristics have consistently been found to be correlated with job satisfaction (Belinsky, 2009; Thomas, Buboltz, & Winkelsprecht, 2004; Van den Berg & Feij, 2003), research should focus on particular job characteristics that might be more valued by Native Americans As with the Davies et al. (2010) study, the results suggest that fundamental cross cultural research is necessary before using most existing HR measures for decision making in organizations that include Native Americans 16

39. Summary of research Meaningful group differences exist for Native Americans on various scales of personality assessments The differences appear to be stable across time The differences exist across measures Meaningful group differences also exist for Native Americans on a well validated measure of job satisfaction Because job characteristics have consistently been found to be correlated with job satisfaction, research should focus on particular job characteristics that might be more valued by Native Americans Results support fundamental cross cultural research is necessary before using most existing HR measures for decision making in organizations that include Native Americans 17

40. References Barrick, M., & Mount, M. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. Birkman, R. W., Elizondo, F., Lee, L. G., Wadlington, P. L., & Zamzow, M. (2008). The Birkman Method® Manual, (1st ed.). Houston, TX: Birkman International, Inc. Davies, S., Little, I., & Ross, R. (2006). Ensuring measurement equivalence and appropriate use of personality assessments across cultures. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologists 21st Annual Convention, May 5th, 2005. Dallas, TX. Davis, G. L., Hoffman, R.G., & Nelson, K. S. (1990). Differences between Native Americans and Whites on the California Psychological Inventory. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,2, 238-242. Epperson, D. L., & Hammond, D.C. (1981). Use of interest inventories with Native Americans: A case for local norms. .Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 213-220. Holland, J. L., Gottfredson, G. D., & Baker, H. G. (1990). Validity of vocational aspirations and interest inventories: Extended, replicated, and reinterpreted. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 337-342. Pace, T. M., Robbins, R.R., Choney, S. K., Hill, J. S., Lacey, K. & Blair, G. (2006). A Cultural-contextual perspective on the validity of the MMPI-2 with American Indians. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 320 –333. Ting, S. R. & Bryant, A. (2001). The impact of acculturation and psychosocial variables on academic performance of Native American and Caucasian freshmen. The Journal of College Admission. U.S. Census Bureau (2000). States Ranked by American Indian and Alaska Native Population, July 1, 1999. Washington, DC: Author. 18

41. Belinsky, A. P. (2009). Job characteristics and personality influences on job satisfaction. Unpublished master’s thesis, Walden University. Birkman, R. W., Elizondo, F., Lee, L. G., Wadlington, P. L., & Zamzow, M. (2008). The Birkman Method® Manual, (1st ed.). Houston, TX: Birkman International, Inc. Davis, G. L., Hoffman, R. G., & Nelson, K. S. (1990). Differences between Native Americans and Whites on the California Psychological Inventory. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2(3), 238-242. Dawis, R. V. (1991). Vocational interests, values, and preferences. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 833-871). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Gough, H. G. (1957). A manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21, 203–224. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92. 19

42. Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34. Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336. Smith, P., Kendall, L., Huling, C., Balzer, W., Kihm, J., Irwin, J., et al. (1969-1997). Job Descriptive Index (1997 Revision) and The Job in General Scales. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from Mental Measurements Yearbook database. Thomas, A., Buboltz, W. C., & Winkelsprecht, C. S. (2004). Job characteristics and personality as predictors of job satisfaction. Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 205-219. Van den Berg, P. T., & Feij, J. A. (2003). Complex relationships among personality traits, job characteristics, and work behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(4), 326-339. 20