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

[Lance Seberhagen]

Lest we forget, didn't Bill Gorham and PRDC help to write the...*
*

*UNIFORM GUIDELINES ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES*

§ 1607.1Statement of purpose.

A./Need for uniformity—Issuing agencies./The Federal government's need 
for a uniform set of principles on the question of the use of tests and 
other selection procedures has long been recognized. The Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission, _/*the Civil Service Commission*/_, 
the Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice jointly have 
adopted these uniform guidelines to meet that need, and to apply the 
same principles to the Federal Government as are applied to other employers.

Lance S.

On 6/4/2016 1:50 PM, Richard Joines wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> IPAC-List
> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist9.pair.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20160604/e51bf568/attachment.html>