THE FOUR-FIFTHS RULE FOR ASSESSING ADVERSE IMPACT: AN ARITHMETIC, INTUITIVE, AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE RULE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management

Volumn 23, Issue , 2004, Pages 177-198

  Bobko, Philip ^a   Roth, Philip L ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 29844452590     PISSN: 07427301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S0742-7301(04)23004-3     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. J. Austin K. Boyle J. Lualhati Statistical conclusion validity for organizational science researchers: A review Organizational Research Methods 1 1998 164 208
2. A.E. Boardman Another analysis of the EEOC Four-Fifths Rule Management Science 8 1979 770 776
3. Bobko, P. (2001). Correlation and regression: Applications for industrial organizational psychology and management (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Boudreau, J. (1991). Utility analysis for decisions in human resource management. In: M. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 621–745). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
5. J. Breaugh Effect size estimation: Factors to consider and mistakes to avoid Journal of Management 29 2003 79 97
6. G. Camilli K. Hopkins Testing for association in 2 × 2 contingency tables with very small sample sizes Psychological Bulletin 86 1979 1011 1014
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. K. DeLucchi The use and misuse of chi-square: Lewis and Burke revisited Psychological Bulletin 94 1983 166 176
9. Fleiss, J. (1994). Measures of effect size for categorical data. In: H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds), The Handbook of Research Synthesis (pp. 245–260). New York: Russell Sage.
10. I. Greenberg An analysis of the EEOC Four-Fifths Rule Management Science 8 1979 762 769
11. Guinyard v. City of New York , 800 F. Supp. 1083, E. D. N.Y. (1992).
12. E. Harcum The highly inappropriate calibration of statistical significance American Psychologist 44 1989 964
13. Hazelwood School District v. United States , 433 U.S. 299 (1977).
14. L. Hsu Using Cohen’s tables to determine the maximum power attainable in two-sample tests when one sample is limited in size Journal of Applied Psychology 78 1993 303 305
15. D. Kahneman A. Tversky Choices, values, and frames American Psychologist 39 1984 341 350
16. Kirk, R. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
17. C. Lawshe Adverse impact: Is it a viable concept? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 18 1987 492 497
18. P. Meier J. Sacks S. Zabell What happened in Hazelwood: Statistics, employment discrimination, and the 80% rule American Bar Foundation Research Journal 83 1984 139 187
19. Mood, A., & Graybill, F. (1963). Introduction to the theory of statistics (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
20. S. Morris R. Lobsenz Significance tests and confidence intervals for the adverse impact ratio Personnel Psychology 53 2000 89 111
21. C. Ostroff D. Harrison Meta-analysis: Level of analysis, and best estimates of population correlations: Cautions for interpreting meta-analytic results in organizational behavior Journal of Applied Psychology 84 1999 260 270
22. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.) (2001). Washington, DC: APA.
23. P.R. Sackett J.E. Ellingson The effects of forming multi-predictor composites on group differences and adverse impact Personnel Psychology 50 1997 707 721
24. E. Simpson The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 13 1951 238 241
25. Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978, August). Federal Register, pp. 38290–38315.
26. H. Wing Statistical hazards in the determination of adverse impact with small samples Personnel Psychology 35 1982 153 162