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

[Dennis Doverspike]

I had forgotten about the ONET assessment or test site until Mike mentioned
it. However, when I tried to go to the site using both Firefox and Google
Chrome, I received a message that it was an insecure connection, someone
was trying to steal my data, and the certificate was invalid.

Are other people having this same problem?

Does the site still exist?

If it still exists, can someone get the federal government to fix this -
seems like a large problem.

Dennis

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Richard Joines <mpscorp at value.net> 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
>



-- 
Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP
Licensed Psychologist, #3539 (OHIO)
Independent Consultant
Professor of Psychology, University of Akron
dennisdoverspike at gmail.com

The information is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential, privileged and/or a work product
for the sole use of the intended recipient. No confidentiality or privilege
is waived or lost by any errant transmission. If you receive this message
in error, please destroy all copies of it and notify the sender. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. In the case of E-mail or electronic
transmission, immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system
and notify the sender. E-mail and fax transmission cannot be guaranteed to
be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted,
lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist9.pair.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20160604/486cc28f/attachment-0001.html>