A set of articles addressing the “Diversity-Validity Dilemma” was recently published in Personnel Psychology (see Spring Issue, Vol. 61). The articles summarize recent research and best practice designed to help organizations simultaneously enhance diversity, validity, and legal compliance in staffing.
Polyhart and Holtz present a number of selection strategies hypothesized to minimize group differences and compare and contrast their effectiveness.
Kravitz discusses the use of affirmative action to enhance representation of underrepresented groups. He cautions against the use of preferential forms and recommending nonpreferential approaches. Examples of strategies that are “most common or most likely to be effective” for increasing representation are also presented.
Pyburn, Polyhart, and Kravitz, provide an overview of the legal context that motivates and constrains the approaches discussed in the previous articles. They also summarize some key court decisions related to affirmative action preferences in the employment context.
The journal issue containing these articles is currently being promoted as a free sample. While this promotion period lasts, the articles are available for free at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/peps/61/1.
Read more!
The Validity-Diversity Dilemma
Input Needed on "Model Guidelines" Revision
The Model Guidelines for Pre-employment Integrity Testing are in the process of revision. Initial ATP member input is needed by June 15, 2008. The following is from Jack Jones: To: ATP’s Industrial-Organizational Division Members
If you are an ATP member and need a copy of the Guidelines, please contact the I-O Division blog.
From: Jack Jones, Ph.D., Vangent, Inc.
Date: May 13, 2008
RE: “Model Guidelines” Update
I have been appointed by William G Harris, ATP’s Chief Executive Officer, to serve as the Chair of the Model Guidelines Revision Committee. I am being assisted by Dr. David W. Arnold who will serve as the Committee’s Chief Legal Advisor. Dave and I will be selecting a core Task Force to oversee this project, but we intend to provide all ATP Industrial-Organizational Division members the opportunity to participate in this revision process.
As you might know, the “Model Guidelines for Pre-employment Integrity Testing” were last updated in 1996. They were originally published in 1991. My ambitious goal is to have a copy of the revised guidelines ready for release at ATP’s Annual Conference in 2009, if not sooner. The key steps to this project include:
1. Phase 1: Needs Analysis - Surveying ATP members and special external contributors to assess their perspectives on what new sections and topics need to be addressed in the 2009 version of the Model Guidelines based on new types of integrity tests, technologies, market trends, laws, etc. that have evolved over the past decade. (In fact your first assignment, if interested, is to review the attached Model Guidelines and either send me a fax or email that provides your perspective on those topics/areas that need to be addressed in the updated version of the Model Guidelines. Please try to get me this information by June 15th at the latest and then Dave Arnold and I will compile a summary report for your review.)
2. Phase 2: Strategic Focus - The Task Force will focus on the most important topics that need to be addressed in the revised edition of the Model Guidelines. “Importance” will be defined as those business, professional, and legal topics that need to be effectively addressed to ensure the ongoing viability of pre-employment integrity testing as both a science and a practice. The results from the Phase 1 survey will be used to assist in this determination, as will consultations with leading experts in the field of pre-employment integrity testing.
3. Phase 3: Task Force Specialization – The Task Force members will be assigned a key section of the Model Guidelines and will be responsible for updating and revising the targeted section. Dave Arnold and I will then review and compile their work to establish a first draft of the revised guidelines. This draft will then be sent out to all key contributors for their feedback and then a 2nd draft will be quickly prepared.
4. Phase 4: Broader External Review – Special interest groups and associations will then be invited to provide feedback on the revised guidelines and will hopefully provide us with an endorsement along with approval to use their organization’s name in the document.
5. Phase 5: ATP Board Approval – The revised Model Guidelines will be submitted to ATP’s Board for final approval. Any final edits will be made at this time.
6. Phase 6: Marketing and Public Relations – Lauren Scheib will work with the Task Force to prepare press releases announcing both the purpose and the availability of these new guidelines.
I hope you embrace this project and contribute to the Phase 1 effort immediately. Remember we are looking for broader themes and macro-level topics in the Phase 1 survey. We will drill down to specific bullet points once we clearly understand what needs to be added/updated. Both my fax number and my e-mail are listed below. Please include all contact information when send a fax or email. Thanks in advance for your contributions!
Regards -
John W. “Jack” Jones, Ph.D.
Vice President & Chief Scientist
Human Capital Division
Vangent, Inc.
One North Dearborn St., Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60602
O: 312-242-4422
M: 312-636-6912
F: 312-242-4210
http://www.vangent-hcm.com/
Jack.Jones@Vangent.com
Read more!
Economic Study of Impact of Pre-Employment Assessment
A recent paper (press release here) in the Quarterly Journal of Economics provides a very interesting analysis of the implementation of a pre-employment assessment program. Highlights include findings that the use of formal assessment in a selection process led to increases in productivity and job tenure with no change in the selection ratio between majority-minority job candidates. Some of the analyses are rather technical but the piece provides an enlightening alternative perspective on how economists analyze data related to selection.
Hat tip to Dave Arnold for the reference!
Read more!
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.
Read more!
EEOC Uniform Guidelines to Stay As Is
The EEOC has opted to leave the Uniform Guidelines as they currently are for at least the next three years. Specifically, the EEOC gave notice of its "intent to submit the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP or Uniform Guidelines) without change, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a three-year approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)."
Additionally, the EEOC is not going to provide additional on the questions which were outlined in 2004 in relation to the definition of an "applicant." Specifically,EEOC does not intend to finalize the five additional Questions and Answers that include clarification of the definition of ‘‘applicant.’’ However, employers still must ensure that they are complying with the requirements of UGESP.
Read more!
Civil Service Testing in China
Here is an interesting article outlining the history of the civil service examination system in China. The author argues that this may be one of China's most important contributions. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, it appears that disgruntled test takers and cheating were of concern at least 1000 years ago just as they are today.
Read more!
Dilbert the Inquisitor
The New York Times takes a humorous look at pre-employment testing and assessment...
Read more!