Abolishing the Uniform Guidelines: Be Careful What You Wish For

Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 526-533

  Outtz, James L ^a  

^a Outtz and Associates   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867587631     PISSN: 17549426     EISSN: 17549434     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01385.x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Testing. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. 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.
3. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, & Department of Justice. (1978). Adoption of four agencies of Uniform Guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43, 38290-39315.
4. 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: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 494-514.
5. Murphy, K. R., & Shiarella, H. A. (1997). Implications of the multidimensional nature of job performance for the validity of selection tests: Multivariate frameworks for studying test validity. Personnel Psychology, 50, 823-854.
6. Newman, D. A., Hanges, P. J., & Outtz, J. L. (2007). Racial groups and test fairness: Considering history and construct validity. American Psychologist, 62, 1082-1083.
7. Outtz, J. (1998). Testing medium validity and test performance. In M. Hakel (Ed.), Beyond multiple choice: Evaluating alternatives to traditional testing for selection. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Outtz, J. (2011a). Addressing the flaws in our assessment decisions: The untold story. In J. Scott & D. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of workforce assessment: Selecting and developing organizational talent. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
9. Outtz, J. (2011b). The unique origins of advancements in selection and personnel psychology. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial organizational psychology, Volume 2. Selecting and developing members Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
10. Outtz, J., & Newman, D. (2010). A theory of adverse impact. In J. Outtz (Ed.), Adverse impact: Implications for organizational staffing and high stakes selection. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
11. Reilly, R. R., & Chao, G. T. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35, 1-61.
12. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
13. Schmitt, N., Chan, D., Sheppard, L., & Jennings, D. (1997). Adverse impact and predictive efficiency of various predictor combinations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 719-730.
14. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Bowling Green, OH: Author.
15. Steel, P., Johnson, J., Jeanneret, P., Scherbaum, C., Hoffman, C., & Foster, J. (2010). At sea with synthetic validity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 371-838.