Modeling the behavior of the 4/5ths rule for determining adverse impact: Reasons for caution

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 91, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 507-522

  Roth, Philip L ^a   Bobko, Philip ^b   Switzer III, Fred S ^a  

^a CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GETTYSBURG COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

4 5ths rule; Adverse impact; Employment discrimination; Test bias

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EMPLOYMENT; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

EMPLOYMENT; HUMANS; PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 33745290190     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.507     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-245.
2. Barrett, R. S. (1998). Challenging the myths of fair employment practices. Westport, CT: Quorum.
3. Boardman, A. E. (1979). Another analysis of the EEOC four-fifths rule. Management Science, 8, 770-776.
4. Bobko, P., & Roth, P. (2004). The four-fifths rule for assessing adverse impact: An arithmetic, intuitive, and logical analysis of the rule and implications for future research. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in Personnel and human resources management (Vol. 23, pp. 177-197). New York: Elsevier.
5. Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., & Potosky, D. (1999). Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 52, 561-589.
6. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2000). Employment and earnings, 46(1), 13-14 (Chart A-4).
7. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, Civil Service Commission, U.S. Department of Labor. & U.S. Department of Justice. (1978). Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43, 38290-38309.
8. Greenberg, I. (1979). An analysis of the EEOC four-fifths rule. Management Science, 8, 762-769.
9. Gully, S. M., Payne, S., C. Kiechel, K. L., & Whiteman, J. K. (2000). The impact of error training and individual differences on training outcomes: An attribute treatment interaction perspective. Unpublished manuscript.
10. Gully, S. M., Phillips, J. M., Beaubien, J. M., & Payne, S. C. (1998, April). Effects of individual differences in goal orientation and self-regulatory tendencies on learning. In S. M. Gully & J. E. Mathieu (Chairs), Individual differences, learning, motivation, and training outcomes. Symposium conducted at the 13th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
11. Hays, W. (1981). Statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
12. Hough, L. (1998). Personality at work: Issues and evidence. In M. Hakel (Ed.), Beyond multiple choice: Evaluating alternatives to traditional testing for selection (pp. 131-159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Hough, L., Oswald, F., & Ployhart, R. (2001). Adverse impact and group differences in constructs, assessment tools, and personnel selection procedures: Issues and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152-194.
14. Hsu, L., M. (1993). 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, 303-305.
15. Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W., Jr. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184-190.
16. Huffcutt, A. I., & Roth, P. L. (1998). Racial group differences in interview evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 179-189.
17. Huffcutt, A. I., Roth, P. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). A meta-analytic investigation of cognitive ability in employment interview evaluations: Moderating characteristics and implications for incremental validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 459-473.
18. Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.
19. James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of personality via conditional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 131-163.
20. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652.
21. Lawshe, C. H. (1987). Adverse impact: Is it a viable concept? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 492-497.
22. Meier, P., Sacks, J., & Zabell, S. (1984). What happened in Hazelwood: Statistics, employment discrimination, and the 80% rule. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 83, 139-187.
23. Morris, S. (2001). Sample size required for adverse impact analysis. Applied HRM Research, 1, 13-32.
24. Morris, S., & Lobsenz, R. E. (2000). Significance tests and confidence intervals for the adverse impact ratio. Personnel Psychology, 53, 89-111.
25. Mount, M. K., & Barrick. M. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: For research and practice in human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 823-854.
26. Olian, J. D., & Guthrie, J. P. (1987). Cognitive ability tests in employment: Ethical perspectives of employers and society. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 9, 185-213.
27. Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792-802.
28. Pulakos, E. P., & Schmitt, N. (1996). An evaluation of two strategies for reducing adverse impact and their effects on criterion-related validity. Human Performance, 9, 241-258.
29. Reilly, R. R., & Chao, G. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35, 1-62.
30. Reilly, R. R., & Warech, M. A. (1993). The validity and fairness of alternatives to cognitive ability tests. In L. Wing & B. Gifford (Eds.), Policy issues in employment testing (pp. 131-224). Boston: Kluwer.
31. Roth, P. L., BeVier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer. F. S., III, & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and education settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 297-330.
32. Roth, P. L., & Bobko, P. (2000). College grade point average as a personnel selection device: Ethnic group differences and potential adverse impact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 399-406.
33. Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., Switzer, F. S., III, & Dean, M. A. (2001). Prior selection causes biased estimates of standardized ethnic group differences: Simulation and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 591-617.
34. Roth, P. L., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Huffcutt, A. I., Eidson, C. E., Jr., & Bobko, P. (2002). Corrections for range restriction in structured interview ethnic group differences: The values may be larger man researchers thought. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 369-376.
35. Roth, P. L., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Huffcutt, A. I., Eidson, C. E., Jr., & Schmit, M. (2002, August). Personality saturation in structured interviews: Less than we thought? In J. M. Werner (Chair), Issues in employment interviewing. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO.
36. Ryan, A. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Friedel, L. A. (1998). Using personality testing to reduce adverse impact: A cautionary note. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 298-307.
37. Sackett, P. R., & Ellingson, J. (1997). The effects of forming multi-predictor composites on group differences and adverse impact. Personnel Psychology, 50, 707-721.
38. Sackett, P. R., & Roth, L. (1996). Multi-stage selection strategies: A Monte Carlo investigation of effects on performance and minority hiring. Personnel Psychology, 49, 549-572.
39. Sackett, P. R., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J. E., & Kabin, M. E. (2001). High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education: Prospects in a post-affirmative-action world. American Psychologist, 56, 302-318.
40. Salgado, J. F. (1998). Sample size in validity studies of personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 161-165.
41. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
42. Schmidt, F. L., Mack, M. J., & Hunter, J. E. (1984). Selection utility in the occupation of U.S. park ranger for three modes of test use. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 490-497.
43. Schmitt, N., Clause, C. S., & Pulakos, E. D. (1996). Subgroup differences associated with different measures of some common job relevant constructs. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Rds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 115-137). New York: Wiley.
44. Schmitt, N., Rogers. W., Chan, D., Sheppard, L., & Jennings, D. (1997). Adverse impact and predictive efficiency of various predictor combinations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 719-730.
45. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O., & Drasgow, F. (2004). Examining the effects of differential item (functioning and differential) test functioning on selection decisions: When are statistically significant effects practically important? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 497-508.
46. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 105-110.
47. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865-886.
48. Wilkinson, L. (1990). SYSTAT: The system for statistics. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT.
49. Wing, H. (1982). Statistical hazards in the determination of adverse impact with small samples. Personnel Psychology, 35, 153-162.
50. Wonderlic. (2000). Manual for the Personal Characteristics Inventory. Libertyville, IL: Author.