Testing for Adverse Impact When Sample Size Is Small

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 93, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 463-471

  Collins, Michael W ^a   Morris, Scott B ^a  

^a ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

adverse impact; selection; significance testing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL;

DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PERSONNEL SELECTION;

EID: 41549097694     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.463     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Aguinis H. Test-score banding in human resource selection: Technical, legal, and societal issues (2004), Praeger, Westport, CT
2. Bernard G.A. Significance tests for 2 × 2 tables. Biometrika 34 (1947) 123-138
3. Bradley J.V. Robustness?. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 31 (1978) 144-152
4. Buonasera, A. K., Kuang, D., Dunleavy, E. M., & Mueller, L. (2006, April). The implications of frequent appliers on adverse impact analyses. Poster presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
5. Camilli G. The test of homogeneity for 2 × 2 contingency tables: A review of and some personal opinions on the controversy. Psychological Bulletin 108 (1990) 135-145
6. Camilli G., and Hopkins K.D. Applicability of chi-square to 2 × 2. contingency tables with small expected frequencies. Psychological Bulletin 85 (1978) 163-167
7. Cascio W.F., Outtz J., Zedeck S., and Goldstein I.L. Statistical implication of six methods of test score use in personnel selection. Human Performance 4 (1991) 233-264
8. Fleiss J.L. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. (1981), Wiley, New York
9. Haber M. Comments on "The test of homogeneity for 2 × 2 contingency tables: A review of and some personal opinions on the controversy" by G. Camilli. Psychological Bulletin 108 (1990) 146-149
10. Hazelwood School District v. United States, 433 U.S. 299. 1977
11. International Mathematical and Statistical Library. User's manual: IMSL Library, problem-solving software system for mathematical and statistical FORTRAN programming 3 (1984), Author, Houston, TX
12. Kroll N.E.A. Testing independence in 2 × 2 contingency tables. Journal of Educational Statistics 14 (1989) 47-79
13. Morris S.B., and Lobsenz R. Significance tests and confidence intervals for the adverse impact ratio. Personnel Psychology 53 (2000) 89-111
14. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Federal contract compliance manual (SUDOC# L 36.8: C 76/993) (1993), Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Washington, DC
15. Paetzold R.L., and Willborn S.L. Statistics in discrimination: Using statistical evidence in discrimination cases (1994), Shepard's/McGraw-Hill, Colorado Springs, CO
16. Roth P.L., Bobko P., and Switzer F.S. Modeling the behavior of the 4/5ths rule for determining adverse impact: Reasons for caution. Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (2006) 507-522
17. Siskin B.R., and Trippi J. Statistical issues in litigation. In: Landy F.J. (Ed). Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives (2005), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 132-166
18. Upton G.J.G. A comparison of alternative tests for the 2 × 2 comparative trial. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 145 (1982) 86-105
19. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register 43 (1978) 38290-38315
20. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Uniform employee selection guidelines interpretation and clarification (questions and answers). Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://www.uniformguidelines.com/qandaprint.html
21. 2 test. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Supplement 1 (1934) 217-235