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

Richard Joines mpscorp at value.net
Sat Jun 4 14:48:58 EDT 2016

Hi Lance:

You're absolutely correct, and as an OPM Regional Psychologist located in S.F. during that era, we got weekly reports on the battles and skirmishes taking place with EEOC.  Our PRDC group did the best they could to block some of the more extreme measures that the EEOC wanted...one sore point with PRDC was the battle over whether or not tasks had to be identified with linkages to KSA's.  We didn't do that in our job element method for blue-collar jobs, and our method was very successful, but finally...well, you know that some compromises had to be made, and they weren't all based on the science that existed at that point in time.  People entering our field today must believe that there were some really great scientific reasons for all of the decisions reflected in the Uniform Guidelines, else why would those decisions be promulgated???

And as I'm sure you know, there is nothing in the Uniform Guidelines about a validity-diversity dilemma, thankfully.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lance Seberhagen 
  To: Richard Joines ; IPAC List 
  Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2016 11:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Michael McDaniel's Reference to the so-called Validity-Diversity Dilemma

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


  § 1607.1 Statement 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 

      IPAC-List at ipacweb.org 

    IPAC-List at ipacweb.org 

       Virus-free. www.avast.com  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist9.pair.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20160604/769bb2ce/attachment.html>

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list