[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?



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

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