[IPAC-List] Michael McDaniel's Reference to the so-called Validity-Diversity Dilemma
Dan Putka
dputka at humrro.org
Fri Jun 3 09:04:34 EDT 2016
Hi Richard,
I think decisions regarding this matter will vary from organizations, and
hinge on what they value and the resources they can offer to deal with
potential inefficiencies in their selection process.
For example, let’s say an organization in question places high value on
diversity. The organization may be willing to sacrifice some level of
criterion-related validity with their selection measure if it results in
bringing a more diverse workforce in the door. A critic may rightly argue
that using a test with lower criterion-related validity would lower the
expected mean performance of individuals hired. While that would be true,
the organization could potentially offset the loss of validity through
more rigorous training and performance management (i.e., a post selection
intervention designed to ensure a greater proportion of the workforce meet
performance standards). Of course adding that rigor may require more
investment on the part of the organization, which they may or may not see
as worth it.
The other thing to consider here is the magnitude of the difference. For
example, using Mike’s quote as an example, if increasing the time limit of
the test has only a small negative impact on validity, but makes a more
sizable reduction in subgroup differences, then it would arguably be
harder to justify not sacrificing validity in that case. In that
situation, one might construe the situation as the organization having a
reasonable alternative to their assumed current approach (i.e., the
reduced time limit) that has minimal impact on validity, but is better
from a subgroup difference perspective. Of course, a challenge in practice
is drawing the line between how much of a drop in validity is too much,
and how much of a drop in subgroup differences is enough to warrant
deviating from the “maximize validity” philosophy. Though statistical
inference can help here (e.g., non-sig. change in validity, sig. change in
subgroup diffs), I think this is a judgment that will also vary from
organization to organization.
Personally, I think one of our key roles as scientist-practitioners in the
selection arena is to help the organizations we work with understand the
implications of potential decisions they make regarding their selection
processes. We can do our best to explain potential options and likely
outcomes based on data, theory, literature, past precedent, experience,
and offer a reasoned, logical opinion, but the final decision may often
not rest in our hands.
Dan
Dan J. Putka, Ph.D.
Principal Staff Scientist
Office: 703.706.5640
dputka at humrro.org | www.linkedin.com/in/dputka
66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 700
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-1578
www.humrro.org
From: "Richard Joines" <mpscorp at value.net>
To: "IPAC List" <ipac-list at ipacweb.org>
Date: 06/02/2016 08:15 PM
Subject: [IPAC-List] Michael McDaniel's Reference to the so-called
Validity-Diversity Dilemma
Sent by: "IPAC-List" <ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org>
Mike,
You make the statement that "if job-related reading speed has undesirable
consequences such as group differences, one may wish to sacrifice merit
hiring for diversity hiring and increase the time limit of the exam."
I guess the question for those who think I/O Psychology is a science is...
how does one reach the decision to throw the science out and go another
route? If the result is lowering validity, I'm certainly not about to
increase the time limit of any of my empirically validated tests. There
would be no scientific basis for doing that.
I would be interested in what people think about this and how they view
their role and what limitations they think they should observe, but my
view has always been to try to maximize validity while ensuring compliance
with federal guidelines. Since the 1978 Uniform Guidelines we've been
compelled to look for alternative selection methods, the idea being that
if we can find or develop a test that has the same or higher validity but
lower adverse impact, we should do that.
However, the idea that we should sacrifice validity in order to increase
diversity strikes me as going too far. Who are we to make such decisions?
We're supposed to be scientists, not social engineers, yes?
Thoughts anyone?
Rich Joines
Mgt & Personnel Systems, Inc.
www.mps-corp.com
925-932-0203
_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist9.pair.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20160603/3871a9a0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 4016 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://pairlist9.pair.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20160603/3871a9a0/attachment.gif>
More information about the IPAC-List
mailing list