Bias and equivalence of the Strengths Use and Deficit Correction Questionnaire

Orientation: For optimal outcomes, it is suggested that employees receive support from their organisation to use their strengths and improve their deficits. Employees also engage in proactive behaviour to use their strengths and improve their deficits. Following this conversation, the Strengths Use and Deficit Correction Questionnaire (SUDCO) was developed. However, the cultural suitability of the SUDCO has not been confirmed.Research purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the bias and structural equivalence of the SUDCO.Motivation for the study: In a diverse cultural context such as South Africa, it is important to establish that a similar score on a psychological test has the same psychological meaning across ethnic groups.Research design, approach and method: A cross-sectional survey design was followed to collect data among a convenience sample of 858 employees from various occupational sectors in South Africa.Main findings: Confirmatory multigroup analysis was used to test for item and construct bias. None of the items were biased, neither uniform nor non-uniform. The most restrictive model accounted for similarities in weights, intercepts and means; only residuals were different.Practical/managerial implications: The results suggest that the SUDCO is suitable for use among the major ethnic groups included in this study. These results increase the probability that future studies with the SUDCO among other ethnic groups will be unbiased and equivalent.Contribution: This study contributed to existing literature because no previous research has assessed the bias and equivalence of the SUDCO among ethnic groups in South Africa.

Psychological assessment for redress in South African organisations: is it just?

This article assesses the research on psychological assessment in post-apartheid South Africa from an organisational justice perspective. A search of peer-reviewed, published research on psychological assessment in organisations in South Africa was conducted from 2000 to March 2014. A total of 69 articles were found, of which the majority focused on the procedural justice of the instruments. Future research needs to focus on aspects of assessment that are related to interactional and distributive justice, if assessment is likely to be perceived as a fair and equitable practice in the workplace.