Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:18:20.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

About Babies and Bathwater: Retaining Core Principles of the Uniform Guidelines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Alan D. Mead  and
Scott B. Morris
Alan D. Mead*
Affiliation:
Illinois Institute of Technology
Scott B. Morris
Affiliation:
Illinois Institute of Technology
*
E-mail: mead@iit.edu, Address: College of Psychology, Illinois Institute of Technology, 3105 S. Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 554 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2011 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Biddle, D. (2010). Should employers rely on local validation studies or validity generalization (VG) to support the use of employment tests in Title VII situations? Public Personnel Management, 39, 307–326. Google Scholar
Brannick, M. T. (2001). Implications of empirical Bayes meta-analysis for test validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 468–480. Google Scholar
Brannick, M. T., & Hall, S. M. (2003). Validity generalization from a Bayesian perspective. In Murphy, K. R. (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Cohen, D., & Dunleavy, E. M. (2009). A review of OFCCP enforcement statistics: A call for transparency in OFCCP reporting. Washington, DC: The Center for Corporate Equality. Google Scholar
Collins, M. W., & Morris, S. B. (2008). Testing for adverse impact when sample size is small. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 463–471.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, E. M., & Gutman, A. (2011). On the legal front: An update on the statistical versus practical significance debate: A review of Stagi v Amtrak (2010). The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 48. Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/tip/april11/17gutman.aspx.Google Scholar
EEOC v. Atlas Paper. (1989). 868 F.2d. 487, 6th Cir., cert. denied, 58 U.S. L.W. 3213.Google Scholar
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, & Department of Justice. (1978). Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43, 38290–39315. Google Scholar
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Personnel Administration, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, & Department of Treasury. (1979). Adoption of questions and answers to clarify and provide a common interpretation of the uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 44, 11996–12009. Google Scholar
Esson, P. L., & Hauenstein, N. M. (2006, May). Exploring the use of the four-fifths rule and significance tests in adverse impact court case rulings. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971). 401 U.S. 424.Google Scholar
Hartigan, J. A., & Wigdor, A. K. (1989). Fairness in employment testing: Validity generalization, minority issues and the General Aptitude Test Battery. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternate predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98. 10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
Johnson, J. W., Steel, P., Scherbaum, C. A., Hoffman, C. C., Jeanneret, P. R., & Foster, J. (2010). Validation is like motor oil: Synthetic is better. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 305–328. Google Scholar
Lawshe, C. H. (1952). Employee selection. Personnel Psychology, 6, 31–34. Google Scholar
McCoy et al. v. Willamette Industries, Inc. (2001). U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, Civil Action No. CV401-075.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A. (2007). Validity generalization as a test validation approach. In McPhail, S. M. (Ed.), Alternative validation strategies: Developing new and leveraging existing validity evidence (pp. 159–180). New York, NY: Wiley. Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Kepes, S., & Banks, G. C. (2011). The Uniform Guidelines are a detriment to the field of personnel selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 494–514.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Rothstein, H. R., & Whetzel, D. L. (2006). Publication bias: A case study of four test vendors. Personnel Psychology, 59, 927–953. Google Scholar
Morris, S. B., & Lobsenz, R. (2000). Significance tests and confidence intervals for the adverse impact ratio. Personnel Psychology, 53, 89–111. Google Scholar
Roth, P., Bobko, P., & McFarland, L. (2005). A meta-analysis of work sample test validity: Updating and integrating some classic literature. Personnel Psychology, 58, 1009–1037. Google Scholar
Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., & Switzer, F. S. (2006). Modeling the behavior of the 4/5ths rule for determining adverse impact: Reasons for caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 507–522. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.507Google Scholar
Rothstein, H. R. (2003). Progress is our most important product: Contributions of validity generalization and meta-analysis to the development and communication of knowledge in I/O psychology. In Murphy, K. R. (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 115–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R. (2003). The status of validity generalization research: Key issues in drawing inferences from cumulative research findings. In Murphy, K. R. (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 91–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529–540. Google Scholar
Taylor v. James River Corporation. (1989). CA 88-0818-T-C (TC) (S.D. AL).Google Scholar
Wanous, J. P., Sullivan, S. E., & Malinak, J. (1989). The role of judgment calls in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 259–264. 10.1037/0021-9010.74.2.259Google Scholar