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

Lance Seberhagen sebe at erols.com
Sat Jun 4 15:55:10 EDT 2016

Hi Richard:

PRDC had a great staff, and the 1970s were important in I/O history. As 
a formerOPM Regional Psychologist during that time, can you share any 
other battles that PRDC had with EEOC over the development of the 
Uniform Guidelines and EEO compliance?  For example, weren't Bill Gorham 
and PRDC opposed to category ranking (aka "banding") as a way to reduce 
unnecessary adverse impact?

Lance S.

On 6/4/2016 2:48 PM, Richard Joines wrote:
> 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 <mailto:sebe at erols.com>
>     *To:* Richard Joines <mailto:mpscorp at value.net> ; IPAC List
>     <mailto:ipac-list at ipacweb.org>
>     *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...*
>     *
>     § 1607.1Statement 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
>     <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
>     	Virus-free. www.avast.com
>     <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
> _______________________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist9.pair.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20160604/eb3b000c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list