Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:34:14.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Guidelines, Principles, Standards, and the Courts: Why Can't They All Just Get Along?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Eric M. Dunleavy*
Affiliation:
Center for Corporate Equality
Michael G. Aamodt
Affiliation:
Center for Corporate Equality
David A. Morgan
Affiliation:
DCI Consulting Group
Arthur Gutman
Affiliation:
Florida Institute of Technology
David B. Cohen
Affiliation:
Center for Corporate Equality
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Center for Corporate Equality, 1920 I St NW, Washington, DC 20006

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
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

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody . (1975). 422 US 405.Google Scholar
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar
Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of California . (2000). 231 F.3d 572.Google Scholar
Bew v. City of Chicago . (2001). 252 F.3d 891.Google Scholar
Biddle, D. A. (2008). Are the Uniform Guidelines outdated? Federal guidelines, professional standards, and validity generalization (VG). The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 45, 1723. Google Scholar
Brunet v. City of Columbus . (CA6 1995). 58 F.2d 251.Google Scholar
Cohen, D. B., Aamodt, M. G., & Dunleavy, E. M. (2010). Technical advisory committee report on best practices in adverse impact analyses. Washington, DC: Center for Corporate Equality.Google Scholar
Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, & Department of Justice (1978). Uniform Guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43, 3829538309. Google Scholar
Gillespie v. State of Wisconsin . (CA7 1985). 771 F.2d 1035.Google Scholar
Griggs v. Duke Power Co . (1971). 401 US 424.Google Scholar
Guardians of NY v. Civil Service Commission . (CA2 1980). 630 F.2d 79.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement and prediction for personnel decisions. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
International Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines. (2009). Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 243253. Google Scholar
Jeanneret, R. (2005). Professional and technical authorities and guidelines. In Landy, F. J. (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives (pp. 47100). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Landy, F. J. (1986). Stamp collecting versus science: Validation as hypothesis testing. American Psychologist, 41, 11831192. 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, 494514.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2009). Content validation is useful for many things, but validity isn't one of them. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 453464. Google Scholar
Police Officers for Equal Rights v. City of Columbus . (CA6 1990). 916 F.2d 1092.Google Scholar
Reynolds, D., & Dunleavy, E. (2011). SIOP recommends review of Uniform Guidelines. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 49, 3841. Google Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). Bowling Green, OH: Author. Google Scholar
Williams v. Ford Motor Company . (1999). 187 F.3d 533.Google Scholar