About Babies and Bathwater: Retaining Core Principles of the Uniform Guidelines

Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 554-557

  Mead, Alan D ^a   Morris, Scott B ^a  

^a ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867592708     PISSN: 17549426     EISSN: 17549434     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01391.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Biddle, D. (2010). Should employers rely on local validation studies or validity generalization (VG) to support the use of employment tests in Title VII situations? Public Personnel Management, 39, 307-326.
2. Brannick, M. T. (2001). Implications of empirical Bayes meta-analysis for test validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 468-480.
3. Brannick, M. T., & Hall, S. M. (2003). Validity generalization from a Bayesian perspective. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 339-364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Cohen, D., & Dunleavy, E. M. (2009). A review of OFCCP enforcement statistics: A call for transparency in OFCCP reporting. Washington, DC: The Center for Corporate Equality.
6. Collins, M. W., & Morris, S. B. (2008). Testing for adverse impact when sample size is small. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 463-471.
7. Dunleavy, E. M., & Gutman, A. (2011). On the legal front: An update on the statistical versus practical significance debate: A review of Stagi v Amtrak (2010). The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 48 Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/tip/april11/17gutman.aspx.
8. EEOC v. Atlas Paper. (1989). 868 F.2d. 487, 6th Cir., cert. denied, 58 U.S. L.W. 3213.
9. 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.
10. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Personnel Administration, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, & Department of Treasury. (1979). Adoption of questions and answers to clarify and provide a common interpretation of the uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 44, 11996-12009.
11. Esson, P. L., & Hauenstein, N. M. (2006, May). Exploring the use of the four-fifths rule and significance tests in adverse impact court case rulings. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
12. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971). 401 U.S. 424.
13. Hartigan, J. A., & Wigdor, A. K. (1989). Fairness in employment testing: Validity generalization, minority issues and the General Aptitude Test Battery. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14. Hunter J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternate predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.
15. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Johnson, J. W., Steel, P., Scherbaum, C. A., Hoffman, C. C., Jeanneret, P. R., & Foster, J. (2010). Validation is like motor oil: Synthetic is better. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 305-328.
17. Lawshe, C. H. (1952). Employee selection. Personnel Psychology, 6, 31-34.
18. McCoy et al. v. Willamette Industries, Inc. (2001). U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, Civil Action No. CV401-075.
19. McDaniel, M. A. (2007). Validity generalization as a test validation approach. In S. M. McPhail (Ed.), Alternative validation strategies: Developing new and leveraging existing validity evidence (pp. 159-180). New York, NY: Wiley.
20. 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.
21. McDaniel, M. A., Rothstein, H. R., & Whetzel, D. L. (2006). Publication bias: A case study of four test vendors. Personnel Psychology, 59, 927-953.
22. Morris, S. B., & Lobsenz, R. (2000). Significance tests and confidence intervals for the adverse impact ratio. Personnel Psychology, 53, 89-111.
23. Roth, P., Bobko, P., & McFarland, L. (2005). A meta-analysis of work sample test validity: Updating and integrating some classic literature. Personnel Psychology, 58, 1009-1037.
24. Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., & Switzer, F. S. (2006). Modeling the behavior of the 4/5ths rule for determining adverse impact: Reasons for caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 507-522.
25. Rothstein, H. R. (2003). Progress is our most important product: Contributions of validity generalization and meta-analysis to the development and communication of knowledge in I/O psychology. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 115-154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Sackett, P. R. (2003). The status of validity generalization research: Key issues in drawing inferences from cumulative research findings. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 91-114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529-540.
28. Taylor v. James River Corporation. (1989). CA 88-0818-T-C (TC) (S.D. AL).
29. Wanous, J. P., Sullivan, S. E., & Malinak, J. (1989). The role of judgment calls in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 259-264.