[IPAC-List] selection validation question

Pluta, Paul ppluta at hr.lacounty.gov
Thu May 28 18:06:15 EDT 2009

The VG arguement does not make any sense because you would only
generalize validity if you didn't have your own direct evidence to
support the inference of criterion-related validity. Criterion-related
validity evidence should be enough to support the use of the test,
although a test that does not result in adverse impact does not require
support (except for the fact that the org. wouldn't want to waste time
and money on a test that does nothing). It sounds to me like you need
to find someone else who will be willing to help you that does not have
an agenda that is not in your best interest.

Paul E. Pluta, MA, 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 2:49 PM
To: IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
Subject: [IPAC-List] selection validation question

A few points of clarification...

I have every reason to believe that this measure will *not* result in
adverse impact, but I support following the Uniform Guidelines as a
matter of good practice. I'm just not sure I understand / agree with the

interpretation I'm being given.

I definitely understand the importance of an updated job analysis, and
it is likely that we will update the previous one ourselves (the biggest

issue is convincing the agency to give us SME time). What I mostly
question is the insistence on all the validity generalization work as a
precursor to the criterion-related validation, and I definitely don't
see where it's "required" by the Guidelines.

The following paragraph from the UG applies to this particular test, so
content validity isn't going to be sufficient:
"A selection procedure based upon inferences about mental processes
cannot be supported solely or primarily on the basis of content
validity. Thus, a content strategy is not appropriate for demonstrating
the validity of selection procedures which purport to measure traits or
constructs, such as intelligence, aptitude, personality, commonsense,
judgment, leadership, and spatial ability."

The test would be used in conjunction with several other selection tools

that measure many other KSAs, so it does not need to "do it all."

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