The Uniform Guidelines Is Not a Scientific Document: Implications for Expert Testimony

Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 545-546

  Sackett, Paul R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857264631     PISSN: 17549426     EISSN: 17549434     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01389.x     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, & Department of Justice. (1978). Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43, 38290-39315.
3. 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: Implications for Science and Practice, 4, 494-514.
4. Sharf, J. C. (2011). Equal employement vs. equal opportunity: A naked political agenda covered by a scientific fig leaf. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Implications for Science and Practice, 4, 537-539.
5. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). Bowling Green, OH: Author.
6. Thornton, G. C. III, & Wingate, P. H. (2005). Industrial and organizational psychologists as expert witness: Affecting employment discrimination litigation post Daubert. In F. J. Landy (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation (pp. 167-198). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.