[IPAC-List] Separate norms for physical fitness tests

Brull, Harry Harry.Brull at pdininthhouse.com
Tue Apr 27 17:35:37 EDT 2010

Does anyone have any references (particularly DOJ or EEOC) which
support the legality of using separate gender-based norms for physical
fitness tests?
Failing any written documentation, help me understand how this is
supportable and legal under 1991 Civil Rights Act.

Trying to help a client,

Harry Brull | Senior Vice-President
PDI Ninth House
Global Leadership Solutions

1.612.337.8233 office
1.612.414.8998 mobile
1.612.337.3695 fax
Harry.Brull at PDINinthHouse.com

33 South Sixth Street
Suite 4900
Minneapolis, MN 55402


-----Original Message-----
From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org
[mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] On Behalf Of Joel Wiesen
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:13 AM
To: Winfred Arthur, Jr.; IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Threatening a Penalty for Guessing

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Winfred.

Do I understand you correctly as saying it is standard practice to
correct both speeded and non-speeded test for guessing, but that you do
not do so for your (non-speeded) knowledge tests?

If so, why do you not correct for guessing?



- -
Joel P. Wiesen, Ph.D., Director
Applied Personnel Research
62 Candlewood Road
Scarsdale, NY 10583-6040
(617) 244-8859

Note: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or
legally privileged information. Please do not forward any contents
without permission. If you have received this message in error please
destroy all copies, completely remove it from your computer, and notify
the sender. Thank you.

Winfred Arthur, Jr. wrote:

> Joel, some general thoughts are embedded below:


> On 4/27/2010 8:19 AM, Joel Wiesen wrote:

>> If a test's instructions say "you may be penalized for questions you

>> mark incorrectly" and then the grading does not correct for guessing,

>> what might the effect be?

> well, my first thought is that the use of "may" makes this


> it shld state explicitly whether one is going to do so or not. "may"

> without specifying the conditions under which this will or will not be

> invoked seems to me to be a recipe for . . . well, problems!


> and whereas i have not seen any empirical rsch or data on this, the

> college board uses this instruction set for some sections of the SAT

> [they do not use "may"; they use "will"] and it is my impression that

> students are more likely to leave these items blank than guess when


> do not know the answer.



>> Has anyone had practical experience with such instructions? Do test

>> takers pay attention to such instructions?

> not personally. indeed to the contrary, i use an instruction set that

> states that there is no penalty for guessing and so it is in one's


> interest to guess if one does not know the answer. subsequently, i

> rarely get any non-responses. of course, these are knowledge tests.


>> Is there research on this type of ambiguous ("may be penalized") test

>> instruction?


> not that i am aware of; but then i have not done a lit search either.

>> (This particular instruction was used on a speeded (clerical speed)

>> portion of a longer test for a craft type job.)

> for what it is worth, it is common, if not stand practice to correct

> these types of tests for accuracy as well.


> hope this is somewhat useful.


> thanks.


> - winfred

IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

Confidentiality Notice: All information in this communication, including any files or attachments, is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information entitled to protection and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return email and delete this communication from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list