[IPAC-List] EEOC's shift away from utility - Reasons why?

[Richard Joines]

Hi Joel,

I worked at OPM from 1972-1980 and what I recall is that our OPM 
representatives opposed the EEOC emphasis on criterion-related validity (and 
differential validity) and strenuously argued the case for putting content 
validity on an equal footing with other recognized forms of validity.  This 
eventually came to pass with the issuance of the Uniform Guidelines in 1978, 
and empirical validation was no longer deemed better than content validity. 
With content validity, there is no estimated validity coefficient, thus no 
way of estimating test utility.  I think this has to be the answer to your 
question...but I haven't read Guion's 2011 text and I'm just thinking back 
to that era and giving you my best guess.

Rich Joines
Mgt & Personnel Systems, Inc.
www.mps-corp.com
925-032-0203


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel Wiesen" <jwiesen at appliedpersonnelresearch.com>
To: "IPAC-List" <IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 6:19 PM
Subject: [IPAC-List] EEOC's shift away from utility - Reasons why?


> Guion's text reports that the 1970 EEOC Guidelines required that 
> validation must result in a high degree of utility (Guion, 2011, page 128, 
> par 1). This requirement was dropped in the 1978 joint Guidelines.
>
> Does anyone have any insight into the reasons why the EEOC backed away 
> from requiring high utility and/or why the other enforcement agencies 
> apparently wanted to focus on validity to the exclusion of utility?
>
> Thanks
>
> Joel
>
>
>
> -- 
> Joel P. Wiesen, Ph.D., Director
> Applied Personnel Research
> 62 Candlewood Road
> Scarsdale, NY 10583-6040
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/joelwiesen
> (617) 244-8859
> http://appliedpersonnelresearch.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> IPAC-List
> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>