The controversy over score banding in personnel selection: Answers to 10 key questions

Personnel Psychology

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 149-185

  Campion, Michael A ^b   Outtz, James L ^c   Zedeck, Sheldon ^a   Schmidt, Frank L ^c   Kehoe, Jerard F ^c   Murphy, Kevin R ^c   Guion, Robert M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035582389     PISSN: 00315826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00090.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Aguinis H, Cortina JM, Goldberg E. (1998). A new procedure for computing equivalence bands in personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 351-365.
2. Barrett GV, Doverspike D, Arthur Jr W. (1995). The current status of judicial review of banding: A clarification. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 33(3), 39-41.
3. Bridgeport Guardians Inc. v. City of Bridgeport (CA 2, 1991) 933F.2d 1140.
4. Cascio WF, Goldstein IL, Outtz J, Zedeck S. (1995). Twenty issues and answers about sliding bands. Human Performance, 8, 227-242.
5. Cascio WF, Outtz J, Zedeck S, Goldstein IL. (1991). Statistical implications of six methods of score use in personnel selection. Human Performance, 4, 233-264.
6. Cascio WF, Zedeck S, Goldstein IL, Outtz J. (1995). Selective science or selective interpretation? American Psychologist, 50, 881-882.
7. Chicago Firefighters Union Local No. 2 v. City of Chicago. (1999). WL 1289125.
8. Cohen J. (1994). The earth is flat (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.
9. Coward WM, Sackett PR. (1990). Linearity of ability-performance relationships: A reconfirmation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 295-300.
10. Gottfredson LS. (1994). The science and politics of race-norming. American Psychologist, 49, 955-963.
11. Gutman A, Christiansen N. (1997). Further clarification of the judicial status of banding. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 35, 75-81.
12. Hanges PJ, Grojean MW, Smith DB. (in press). Bounding the concept of test banding: Reaffirming the traditional approach. Human Performance.
13. Hunter JE. (1997). Needed: A ban on the significance test. Psychological Science, 8, 3-7.
14. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. (1996). Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 447-472.
15. Kehoe JF, Tenopyr ML. (1994). Adjustment in assessment scores and their usage: A taxonomy and evaluation of methods. Psychological Assessment, 6, 291-303.
16. Loftus GR. (1996). Psychology will be a much better science when we change the way we analyze data. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 161-171.
17. Murphy KR. (1994). Potential effects of banding as a function of test reliability. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 47, 477-495.
18. Murphy KR, Myors B. (1995). Evaluating the logical critique of banding. Human Performance, 8, 191-201.
19. Murphy K, Myors B. (1998). Statistical power analysis: A simple and general model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Murphy KR, Osten K, Myors B. (1995). Modeling the effects of banding in personnel selection, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 48, 61-84.
21. Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Commission (CA9, 1992) 979 F.2d 721, cert. denied, 61 U.S.L.W. 3667, 113 S. Ct. 1645 (March 29, 1993).
22. Sackett PR, Roth L. (1991). A Monte Carlo examination of banding and rank-order methods of test score use in personnel selection. Human Performance, 4, 279-295.
23. Sackett PR, Wilk SL. (1994). Within-group norming and other forms of score adjustment in preemployment testing. American Psychologist, 49, 929-954.
24. Scientific Affairs Committee. (1994). An evaluation of banding methods in personnel selection. Arlington Heights, IL: The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
25. Schmidt FL. (1988). The problem of group differences in ability scores in employment selection. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 272-292.
26. Schmidt FL. (1991). Why all banding procedures are logically flawed. Human Performance, 4, 265-277.
27. Schmidt FL. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for the training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1, 115-129.
28. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. (1995). The fatal internal contradiction in banding: Its statistical rationale is logically inconsistent with its operational procedures. Human Performance, 8, 203-214.
29. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. (1997). Eight common but false objections to the discontinuation of statistical significance testing. In Harlow L, Mulaik S, Steiger JH (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (2), 262-274.
31. Siskin BR. (1995). Relationships between performance and banding. Human Performance, 8, 215-226.
32. Truxillo DM, Bauer TN. (1999). Applicant reactions to test score banding in entry-level promotional contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 322-339.
33. Zedeck S, Cascio WF, Goldstein IL, Outtz J. (1996). Sliding bands: An alternative to top-down selection. In Barrett R (Ed.), Handbook of fair employment strategies (pp. 222-234). Westport, CT: Quorum.
34. Zedeck S, Outtz J, Cascio WF, Goldstein IL. (1991). Why do "testing experts" have such limited vision? Human Performance, 4, 297-308.