IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bdi/wptemi/td_1515_26.html

Assessing the effectiveness of workers' selection exams: the case of Banca d'Italia

Author

Listed:
  • Santiago Pereda-Fernandez

    (Universidad de Cantabria)

Abstract

High-stakes exams can be used to rank and select candidates for job openings, and the ability of successful candidates hinges on the design of the exam. I propose a method for modelling candidates' performance in order to assess how effective the exam is at selecting high-ability candidates - defined as those more likely to provide correct answers after considering the observable characteristics of the candidates, their propensity to answer and the difficulty of the questions asked. I apply this method to the competitive exam used by the Bank of Italy in its hiring practices. This also offers an interesting case study on discrimination in hiring, as the selection rate for women is lower than that for men. The results suggest that the exam tends to select those candidates possessing a higher level of ability. Finally, some simulations show how certain modifications to the exam structure could potentially increase the average ability of the selected candidates.

Suggested Citation

  • Santiago Pereda-Fernandez, 2026. "Assessing the effectiveness of workers' selection exams: the case of Banca d'Italia," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 1515, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    • Handle: RePEc:bdi:wptemi:td_1515_26
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/temi-discussione/2026/2026-1515/en_tema_1515.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pekkarinen, Tuomas, 2015. "Gender differences in behaviour under competitive pressure: Evidence on omission patterns in university entrance examinations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 94-110.
    2. Tatyana Avilova & Claudia Goldin, 2018. "What Can UWE Do for Economics?," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 108, pages 186-190, May.
    3. J. Ignacio Conde-Ruiz & Juan José Ganuza & Manuel García, 2020. "Gender Gap and Multiple Choice Exams in Public Selection Processes," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 235(4), pages 11-28, December.
    4. Victor Chernozhukov & Iván Fernández‐Val & Jinyong Hahn & Whitney Newey, 2013. "Average and Quantile Effects in Nonseparable Panel Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(2), pages 535-580, March.
    5. Marianne Bertrand & Dolly Chugh & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2005. "Implicit Discrimination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 94-98, May.
    6. Manuel Bagues & Mauro Sylos-Labini & Natalia Zinovyeva, 2017. "Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1207-1238, April.
    7. Iriberri, Nagore & Rey-Biel, Pedro, 2021. "Brave boys and play-it-safe girls: Gender differences in willingness to guess in a large scale natural field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    8. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    9. Cecilia Rouse & Claudia Goldin, 2000. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 715-741, September.
    10. Avraham Ebenstein & Victor Lavy & Sefi Roth, 2016. "The Long-Run Economic Consequences of High-Stakes Examinations: Evidence from Transitory Variation in Pollution," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 36-65, October.
    11. Laura Hospido & Luc Laeven & Ana Lamo, 2022. "The Gender Promotion Gap: Evidence from Central Banking," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(5), pages 981-996, December.
    12. Perrone, Helena & Funk, Patricia, 2016. "Gender Di erences in Academic Performance: The Role of Negative Marking in Multiple-Choice Exams," CEPR Discussion Papers 11716, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    13. Iván Fernández-Val & Martin Weidner, 2018. "Fixed Effects Estimation of Large-TPanel Data Models," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 10(1), pages 109-138, August.
    14. Gary Chamberlain, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(1), pages 225-238.
    15. Katherine B. Coffman & David Klinowski, 2020. "The impact of penalties for wrong answers on the gender gap in test scores," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(16), pages 8794-8803, April.
    16. Claudia Biancotti & Giuseppe Ilardi & Clair Lavinia Moscatelli, 2013. "The glass drop ceiling: composition effects or implicit discrimination?," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 182, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    17. Horrace, William C. & Oaxaca, Ronald L., 2006. "Results on the bias and inconsistency of ordinary least squares for the linear probability model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 321-327, March.
    18. Farré, Lídia & Ortega, Francesc, 2019. "Selecting Talent: Gender Differences in Participation and Success in Competitive Selection Processes," IZA Discussion Papers 12530, IZA Network @ LISER.
    19. Donna K. Ginther & Shulamit Kahn, 2004. "Women in Economics: Moving Up or Falling Off the Academic Career Ladder?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(3), pages 193-214, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saygin, Perihan O. & Atwater, Ann, 2021. "Gender differences in leaving questions blank on high-stakes standardized tests," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    2. Pau Balart & Lara Ezquerra & Iñigo Hernandez-Arenaz, 2022. "Framing effects on risk-taking behavior: evidence from a field experiment in multiple-choice tests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1268-1297, September.
    3. J. Ignacio Conde-Ruiz & Juan José Ganuza & Manuel García, 2020. "Gender Gap and Multiple Choice Exams in Public Selection Processes," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 235(4), pages 11-28, December.
    4. Anaya, Lina & Iriberri, Nagore & Rey-Biel, Pedro & Zamarro, Gema, 2022. "Understanding performance in test taking: The role of question difficulty order," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    5. Iriberri, Nagore & Rey-Biel, Pedro, 2021. "Brave boys and play-it-safe girls: Gender differences in willingness to guess in a large scale natural field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    6. Montolio, Daniel & Taberner, Pere A., 2021. "Gender differences under test pressure and their impact on academic performance: A quasi-experimental design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 1065-1090.
    7. Laura Hospido & Luc Laeven & Ana Lamo, 2022. "The Gender Promotion Gap: Evidence from Central Banking," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(5), pages 981-996, December.
    8. Adamus, Magdalena & Mikušková, Eva Ballová, 2020. "Gender-based wage discrimination and the backlash effect in recruitment and dismissal processes Experimental evidence from Slovakia," OSF Preprints 4y6uc, Center for Open Science.
    9. Boring, Anne & Philippe, Arnaud, 2021. "Reducing discrimination in the field: Evidence from an awareness raising intervention targeting gender biases in student evaluations of teaching," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    10. Delaney, Judith M. & Devereux, Paul J., 2021. "Gender and Educational Achievement: Stylized Facts and Causal Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 14074, IZA Network @ LISER.
    11. Espinosa Maria Paz & Gardeazabal Javier, 2020. "The Gender-bias Effect of Test Scoring and Framing: A Concern for Personnel Selection and College Admission," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(3), pages 1-23, July.
    12. Clément Bosquet & Pierre‐Philippe Combes & Cecilia García‐Peñalosa, 2019. "Gender and Promotions: Evidence from Academic Economists in France," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 1020-1053, July.
    13. Dmitry Arkhangelsky & Guido Imbens, 2023. "Causal Models for Longitudinal and Panel Data: A Survey," Papers 2311.15458, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    14. Lamo, Ana & Laeven, Luc, 2019. "The gender promotion gap: what holds back female economists from making a career in central banking?," Research Bulletin, European Central Bank, vol. 63.
    15. Amanda Goodall & Margit Osterloh & Mandy Fong, 2020. "Women Shy Away From Competition – How To Overcome It," CREMA Working Paper Series 2020-21, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    16. Maria De Paola & Michela Ponzo & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2018. "Are Men Given Priority for Top Jobs? Investigating the Glass Ceiling in Italian Academia," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(3), pages 475-503.
    17. Ballis, Briana & Lusher, Lester & Martorell, Paco, 2022. "The effects of exam frames on student effort and performance," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    18. Panizza, Ugo & Nano, Enrico & Viarengo, Martina, 2021. "A Generation of Italian Economists," CEPR Discussion Papers 16135, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    19. Smith, Sarah & Sevilla, Almudena, 2020. "Women in economics: A UK Perspective," CEPR Discussion Papers 15034, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    20. Iris Bohnet & Alexandra van Geen & Max Bazerman, 2016. "When Performance Trumps Gender Bias: Joint vs. Separate Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1225-1234, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • J7 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Discrimination
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bdi:wptemi:td_1515_26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bdigvit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.