In Defense of Validity Generalization...

Since Frank Schmidt and John Hunter published their classic paper in 1977, the concept of validity generalization has become almost universally accepted within the field of I-O psychology. However, there have been reports over the past several months that OFCCP has become increasingly resistant to validity arguments based upon meta-analytic validity generalization and has suggested that local validation studies be carried out when cognitive ability tests are used. In part, OFCCP's concerns seem to center around the fact that the notion of meta-analytic validity generalization does not appear in the Uniform Guidelines, which were drafted in 1978.

In an attempt to make the ATP membership and others in the I-O community aware of this issue, Jim Sharf of Employment Risk Advisors was kind enough to share two documents. The first is a letter that Jim wrote to the EEOC where he argues that the sections of the Uniform Guidelines which address "situational specificity" and "single group validity" are obsolete. The second is an open letter to OFCCP authored by David Copus, a well-known employment law attorney, who provides a very extensive review of the history of validity generalization and argues how the reliance of the Uniform Guidelines on the concept of "situational specificity" is dated and renders them inconsistent with current thinking in the field.