[IPAC-List] Norms

[Lance Seberhagen]

Why not report all three norms?  Each one may provide useful information 
for different purposes, and it would also be useful to know if there 
were significant differences between norms.

In employment discrimination cases, EEOC and the courts normally count 
every test score in the calculation of adverse impact.  In other words, 
if the same applicant takes the test 10 times, the applicant counts as 
10 applicants, even though they are the same person. Calculations based 
on all test scores could have the effect of magnifying adverse impact. 
Therefore, it is often helpful for employers to calculate adverse impact 
in at least two ways: (1) all-test-scores and (2) first-score-only to 
provide a more clear picture of adverse impact.

Employers should also track how many times the same applicant takes a 
given test to see if there could be a problem with over-exposure of the 
test.  Some employers permit unlimited retesting, and I have seen cases 
in which the same applicant took the test 10 times or more, within a 
relatively sort time period, before they finally passed the test.

Lance Seberhagen, Ph.D.

Seberhagen & Associates

9021 Trailridge Court

Vienna, VA 22182

703-790-0796

www.seberhagen.com <http://www.seberhagen.com>



On 1/8/2014 12:49 PM, Patrick McCoy wrote:

> I am currently running off some normative data on a test (means and 

> frequency distributions) to see how people are doing on it and to see 

> what proportion pass at various cutoff scores.

> My question concerns how to handle the issue of candidates taking the 

> same test more than once.  One option would be to use only the first 

> test score.  Another would be to use all scores.  A third option would 

> be to use only the most recent score.

> My tendency would be to use the most recent score or all scores, and I 

> suspect that the results from these two approaches will be quite 

> similar in most instances.  Does that make sense or am I missing 

> something?

> Your thinking on this would be appreciated!

> Pat McCoy

> Ottawa Canada

>

> >

> This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may 

> contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt 

> from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying 

> or re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or 

> not authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this 

> e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete 

> the message and any copies.

> >

> Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en 

> titre et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou 

> soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute 

> divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est 

> interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou n'êtes 

> pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu 

> par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et 

> supprimer le courriel et les copies.

>

>

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20140108/25228cc6/attachment-0001.html