Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T18:10:37.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No Steps Forward, Two Steps Back: The Fallacy of Trying to “Eradicate” Adverse Impact?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Winfred Arthur Jr.  and
David Woehr
Winfred Arthur Jr.*
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
David Woehr
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina Charlotte
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4235
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Within the context of the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and specifically as it pertains to the tenets of Title VII, Lindsey, King, Dunleavy, McCausland, and Jones (2013) state: “This focal article raises and addresses critical issues regarding a yet unanswered question: How can organizational researchers and practitioners contribute to the ultimate goal of eradicating employment discrimination” (p. 391). We argue that in the context of employment testing and selection, at least as per the disparate impact theory of discrimination, this question is the wrong one—certainly as framed by Lindsey et al. To the contrary, instead of holding up the "eradication of employment discrimination" as our ultimate goal, perhaps we should continue to focus on the development, implementation, and support of the best (i.e., most job-related and valid) employment practices possible.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 438 - 442
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2013

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

Angoff, W. H. (1982). Use of difficulty and discrimination indices for detecting item bias. In Berk, R. A. (Ed.), Handbook of methods for detecting test bias (pp. 96–116). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. Jr., Doverspike, D., Barrett, G. V., & Miguel, R. (2013). Chasing the title VII Holy Grail: The pitfalls of guaranteeing adverse impact elimination. Journal of Business and Psychology. doi: 10.1007/s10869-013-9289-6Google Scholar
Arthur, W. Jr., Edwards, B. D., & Barrett, G. V. (2002). Multiple-choice and constructed-response tests of ability: Race-based subgroup performance differences on alternative paper-and-pencil test formats. Personnel Psychology, 55, 985–1008.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. Jr., & Villado, A. J. (2008). The importance of distinguishing between constructs and methods when comparing predictors in personnel selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 435–442.Google Scholar
Barrett, G. V., Doverspike, D., & Arthur, W. Jr. (1995). The current status of the judicial review of banding: A clarification. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 33(1), 39–41.Google Scholar
Beltrán-Martín, I., Roca-Puig, V., Escrig-Tena, A., & Bou-Llusar, J. C. (2008). Human resource flexibility as a mediating variable between high performance work systems and performance. Journal of Management, 34, 1009–1044.Google Scholar
Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Wiemann, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60, 271–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobko, P., & Roth, P. L. (2004). Personnel selection with top-score-references banding: On the inappropriateness of current procedures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 291–298.Google Scholar
Bobko, P., & Roth, P. L. (2013). Reviewing, categorizing, and analyzing the literature on Black-White mean differences for predictors of job performance: Verifying some perceptions and updating/correcting others. Personnel Psychology, 66, 91–126.Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F., Outtz, J., Zedeck, S., & Goldstein, I. L. (1991). Statistical implications of six methods of test score use in personnel selection. Human Performance, 4, 233–264.Google Scholar
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88–352 (78 Stat. 241).Google Scholar
Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. CC 1981, 200e et seq.Google Scholar
Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., & Ketchen, D. (2011). To what extent does human capital shape performance? A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, & Department of Justice. (1978). Adoption by four agencies of uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43, 38290–38315.Google Scholar
Lindsey, A., King, E., McCausland, T., Jones, K., & Dunleavy, E. (2013). What we know and don't: Eradicating employment discrimination 50 years after the Civil Rights Act. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(4), 391–413.Google Scholar
Linn, R. L., & Drasgow, F. (1987). Implications of the golden rule settlement for test construction. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 6, 13–17.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1977). A study of item bias using item characteristic curve theory. In Poortinga, Y. H. (Ed.), Basic problems in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 19–29). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, D. A., & Lyon, J. S. (2009). Recruitment efforts to reduce adverse impact: Targeted recruiting for personality, cognitive ability, and diversity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 298–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, F. L. (2011). A theory of sex differences in technical aptitude and some supporting evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 560–573.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Mills, A. E. (2001). Traditional tests and job simulations: Minority and majority performance and test validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 451–458.Google Scholar
The Cooper Institute. (2011). The Cooper Standards. Dallas, TX: The Cooper Institute. Retrieved from http://www.cooperinstitute.org/law-fire-militaryGoogle Scholar