Some studies have examined group mean score differences between Latinos/Hispanics and Whites on biodata inventories. Schmitt and Kunce (2002) do not report the exact value or sample size, but indicate a difference of about d = 0.12 favouring Whites. Becton and colleagues (2009) reported a Latino/Hispanic-White d of 0.07 favouring Whites
(uncorrected; N = 8,512), in a large, predictive validity study in the healthcare industry. However, the sample for Latinos/Hispanics was small (N = 350). Gandy, Dye and MacLane (1994) reported a d = 0.08 on a biodata inventory used in the US federal government.
Dean and colleagues’ (2008) meta-analysis obtained an overall d of 0.28 between Latinos/ Hispanics and Whites, with Whites scoring higher (k=9, N = 40,591). After removing one study (N = 36,613), the difference increased to d = 0.40 (k = 8, N = 3,978). Dean and colleagues did not report any tests for moderators in the Latino/Hispanic and White comparisons. As previously noted, interpreting these differences is difficult, as assessment centres generally comprise multiple exercises that assess multiple constructs. Thus, it is unclear whether the majority of the variance in these effect sizes is due to exercises, constructs or even formats.