[IPAC-List] selection validation question

Blair, Michael D[EQ] Michael.D.Blair at Embarq.com
Thu May 28 18:31:57 EDT 2009

Megan -

I concur with Paul regarding the necessary validity evidence (see my previous response for more detail). Call your consultant out if he/she continues to insist on a VG or transportability study. It is not needed if you have sufficient local criterion-related validity evidence and would be a waste of time and money. I'm actually somewhat surprised. When I was in consulting, we always preferred a criterion-related validity study. Not only does it typically provide more work/revenue for the consultant, but the results can be folded into existing data to further support the VG and transportability argument for future clients.

Paul and I seem to disagree regarding adverse-impact being the only consideration on whether or not to conduct a validity study. For me, confirming validity is not an option. However, this is a debate for another day (I suspect that we are actually a lot closer on this point than it may appear).

Bottom line - you are right to question your consultant and the logic/reason behind criterion-validity being the dessert when you are offering it as the main course.

Michael D. Blair
Manager, Recruitment, Selection & Assessment
Voice: 913-345-6334 | Cell: 913-832-6130 | Fax: 913-345-6417
Email: Michael.D.Blair at embarq.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/blairmichaeld

This e-mail is the property of EMBARQ and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

-----Original Message-----
From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] On Behalf Of Pluta, Paul
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:06 PM
To: IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] selection validation question

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
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list