[IPAC-List] selection validation question

Pluta, Paul ppluta at hr.lacounty.gov
Thu May 28 15:47:29 EDT 2009


The first question I would ask is to what extent you expect the test to
result in adverse impact. If a test does not result in adverse impact,
you are free to do pretty much whatever you want and it all boils down
to utility. If it can be reasonably expected to result in adverse
impact, then you will have to get your ducks in a row.

If you have a previous job analysis study on file, you might just do a
quick review with a panel of SMEs to update it to reflect the changes to
the work, and document the procedure used and results obtained. Then,
just map the test onto the KSAs identified in the JA and you're pretty
much home free. The criterion-related evidence is really just icing on
the cake because the content validity evidence should provide sufficient
support in most cases.

It sounds like your "nameless" consultants are just trying to hand you
the old mechanics line that you need a rebuild when all you really need
is an overhaul. IMHO

Paul E. Pluta, ABD, SPHR
Human Resources Analyst III
Los Angeles County Department of Human Resources
Workforce Planning, Test Research, & Appeals Division

-----Original Message-----
From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org
[mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] On Behalf Of Megan Paul
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:04 PM
To: IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
Subject: [IPAC-List] selection validation question

I am currently considering the use of a commercially available selection

tool (vendor and tool shall rename nameless). An in-house
criterion-related validation study was done on the test many years ago,
but the test was never implemented. The job has since changed enough
that I would not feel comfortable implementing the test on the basis of
the old results.

When I recently spoke with the one of the company's consultants and said

that I wanted to do another criterion-related validity study, this time
using their assistance with analyses, I was told that the research
process needed to start with a job analysis and validity generalization
research (both done by said company and requiring a significant amount
of time on their part and my client's). The criterion-related validation

is apparently considered a "follow-up" to all the other work. When I
said I only wanted to do the criterion-related validation portion (a
simple and quick concurrent validation), she told me that the company
has to do the job analysis and validity generalization first, because
"that's what the Uniform Guidelines require."

There's a lot I could say here, but I will just start with a question.

Megan E. Paul, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Center on Children, Families, and the Law
206 S. 13th Street, Suite 1000
Lincoln, NE 68588-0227

(402) 472-9812 Office
(402) 472-8412 Fax

IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list