[IPAC-List] differential validity?

[Jeff Feuquay]

Don't really have enough info for any firm conclusion, but possibility
exists the results are an artifact of range restriction in the international
non-Cauc. and female education variable. N'est pas?

Jeff

=========================================
Dr. Jeff Feuquay, Psychologist & Attorney
Special Counsel to Russell, Brown & Breckenridge
PO Drawer J, Nevada MO 64772-0938

Tel: 417.667.5076     Fax: 417.667.3013
Cell: 417.549.0997

PRIVACY NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2510 et seq.. It is
confidential and may be legally privileged under attorney-client and/or
psychologist-patient doctrines. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, and may constitute a
crime. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in
error, then delete it entirely from your system. Thank you.

NON-SECURE COMMUNICATION NOTICE: The Missouri Bar Disciplinary Counsel
requires all Missouri lawyers to notify all recipients of e-mail that (1)
e-mail communication is not a secure method of communication, (2) any e-mail
that is sent to you or by you may be copied and held by various computers it
passes through as it goes from me to you or vice versa, (3) persons not
participating in our communication may intercept our communications by
improperly accessing your computer or my computer or even some computer
unconnected to either of us which the e-mail passed through.  I am
communicating to you via e-mail because you have consented to receive
communications via this medium or because this is a non-privileged
communication.  If you want future communications to be sent in a different
fashion, please let me know AT ONCE.



-----Original Message-----
From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org]
On Behalf Of Bryan Baldwin
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 12:56 PM
To: IPAC-List at ipacweb.org; Joel Wiesen
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] differential validity?

For those more statistically minded, perhaps a comment on the
statistics/analysis results?
 
The authors used a "regression-based moderator search" and came up with
the following results for the aforementioned education level-task
performance results:
 
Proportion of women: k=91, Beta = -.20 (p<.05), explained variance:
.04
Proportion of racial minority: k=36, Beta = -.22 (p<.10), explained
variance: .05
 
 
Bryan Baldwin
Staff Services Manager
California Department of Justice
Division of Administrative Support
Personnel Programs
(916) 322-5446



>>> Joel Wiesen <wiesen at personnelselection.com> 3/16/2009 5:26 AM >>>

What do you think of this apparent support for differential validity 
(from a recent Personnel Psych article)?

Might it imply that education is problematic as selection tool when the

applicant group includes minorities and/or women?  Would it imply that

an education requirement may be unfair to minorities and/or women?

Joel


"Finally, Hypothesis 6 predicted that the education-performance 
relationship will be stronger for men (vs. women; Hypothesis 6a) and
for 
Caucasians (vs. non-Caucasians; Hypothesis 6b). With respect to the 
relationship between education level and task performance, we found
that 
the relationship was more positive for Caucasians than for other racial

groups and for men than for women. Further, we found that the 
relationship between education and OCB was more positive for Caucasians

than for other racial groups. These results provide some support for 
Hypothesis 6a and Hypothesis 6b."

From:
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 62, 89*134
HOW BROADLY DOES EDUCATION CONTRIBUTE TO JOB PERFORMANCE?
THOMAS W. H. NG; University of Hong Kong
DANIEL C. FELDMAN; University of Georgia

_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org 
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the
use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use
or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the
communication.
_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list