[IPAC-List] Norms
Joel Wiesen
jwiesen at appliedpersonnelresearch.com
Wed Jan 8 13:36:18 EST 2014
Hi Lance,
Might you provide a citation or two for courts counting one applicant as
multiple applicants based on the applicant taking a test multiple times?
Thanks.
Joel
- -
Joel P. Wiesen, Ph.D., Director
Applied Personnel Research
62 Candlewood Road
Scarsdale, NY 10583-6040
http://www.linkedin.com/in/joelwiesen
(617) 244-8859
http://appliedpersonnelresearch.com
On 1/8/14 1:27 PM, Lance Seberhagen wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> IPAC-List
> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
> http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>
More information about the IPAC-List
mailing list