[IPAC-List] Michael McDaniel's Reference to the so-called Validity-Diversity Dilemma

[Richard Joines]

Hi Mark,

>From the Taylor-Russell Tables:

If you increase the test time allowed and this reduces validity from .5 to 
.4 where you have a selection ratio of .20 and current percent successful on 
the job at 50%, you're talking approximately a 10% reduction in the overall 
success rate that the test produces (78% down to 73%, where 5% reduction/50% 
base rate=10% reduction in success rate).  Why not accept a 25% or 50 
reduction?

You indicate it wouldn't be ok to drop validity from .6 to .2, which would 
basically result in dropping the success rate from 84% to 61% of those hired 
(46% reduction in success rate), but maybe someone else would say that's 
fine.  Why isn't this ok with you?  Seriously, why not?

You have to forgive me for how I think about these issues...I was 
successfully indoctrinated by OPM during the 1970's where our 80+ 
psychologists (in OPM's Personnel Research and Development Center), led by 
Bill Gorham, and greatly assisted by Frank Schmidt and others, debunked most 
of what was coming out of the EEOC.  Well, temporarily debunked it...looks 
like we've got a sequel, The EEOC Strikes Back.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <mhammer at 295.ca>
To: <ipac-list at ipacweb.org>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Michael McDaniel's Reference to the so-called 
Validity-Diversity Dilemma


>I liked Dan's post very much.  The magnitude of the forfeiture is
> important in considering the balance.  If bending timing drops predictive
> validity from .5 down to .42, but improves representativeness, I'm okay
> with that.  If we're talking a drop from .6 to .2, that's a whole other
> story.
>
> _______________________________________________________
> IPAC-List
> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>