[IPAC-List] Seeking copy of Test 21

Tue Apr 10 16:09:22 EDT 2018

Lance,

The main point is Washington v. Davis found the test to be valid, I find
nothing indicating it was struck down in the case.

I am not a lawyer. Nevertheless, I would disagree that the Supreme Court
did not consider Title VII, as I quoted, see below.  I am not a lawyer, but
I believe the decision is clear in that they did consider Title VII,
although it was not a Title VII case as you correctly note.

   *2. Statutory standards similar to those obtaining under Title VII were
   also satisfied here. *

*The submission of the defendants in the District Court was that Test 21
complied with all applicable statutory as well as constitutional
requirements; and they appear not to have disputed that under the statutes
and regulations governing their conduct standards similar to those
obtaining under Title VII had to be satisfied. 15
<http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/426/229.html#f15>The District
Court also assumed that Title VII standards were to control the case,
identified the determinative issue as whether Test 21 was sufficiently job
related and proceeded to uphold use of the test because it was "directly
related to a determination of whether the applicant possesses sufficient
skills requisite to the demands of the curriculum a recruit must master at
the police academy." 348 F. Supp., at 17. *

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Lance Seberhagen <sebe at rcn.com> wrote:

> The Supreme Court upheld the use of OPM's "Test 21" for DC police officers
> in 1976 under the US Constitution (intentional discrimination) but did
> not consider compliance under Title VII (adverse impact) because Title
> VII did not apply to the DC or federal government at the time of the
> complaint.  In 1981, the DC government reduced the passing score of Test
> 21 from 50% correct (40 out of 80 items) to 43.75% (35 out of 80 items)
> and then ranked candidates by random selection above the passing score in
> an effort to reduce adverse impact by race.
>
> The US Civil Service Commission developed Test 21 (an 80-item test of
> verbal reasoning) in 1946 and started using the test to select DC police
> officers in 1948.  USCSC/OPM administered tests for the DC government
> through 1980.  In 1981, the DC government assumed full responsibility for
> its employment testing, including OPM tests.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1981/08/20/
> new-exam-standard-for-dc-police-is-a-fair-b-unfair/
> bbe2ad9a-ba40-4f25-8875-e72f0c4f85e6/?utm_term=.92435291d41b
>
> Lance S.
>
>
> On 4/10/2018 2:30 PM, Dennis Doverspike wrote:
>
> My recollection is that this case is usually used to support content
> validity.  Because the SC specifically said you do not need to have a
> statistical relationship between the test and job performance to prove job
> relatedness.  Job relatedness can be demonstrated in other ways than a
> strict correlation between the test and performance on the job.
>
> Dennis
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Dennis Doverspike <
> dennisdoverspike at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Joel,
>>
>> I just read through Gutman's book, the Supreme Court decisions, as well
>> as my own now declining memory related to the case - and all reach a
>> conclusion the opposite of yours. That is, if I am correct in my
>> interpretation of all three - they supported the use of Test 21. So Test 21
>> was not struck down, it was specifically found to be valid. From the SC
>> case,
>>
>>    2. Statutory standards similar to those obtaining under Title VII
>>    were also satisfied here. The District Court's conclusion that Test 21 was
>>    directly related to the requirements of the police training program and
>>    that a positive relationship between the test and that program was
>>    sufficient to validate the test (wholly aside from its possible
>>    relationship to actual performance as a police officer) is fully supported
>>    on the record in this case, and no remand to establish further validation
>>    is appropriate. Pp. 248-252.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Joel Wiesen <
>> jwiesen at appliedpersonnelresearch.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Test 21 was struck down in Washington v Davis in 1976.  (It had been
>>> used to select DC police officers.)
>>>
>>> The test was in the court record.
>>>
>>> I am seeking a copy of Test 21.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Joel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joel P. Wiesen, Ph.D., Director
>>> Applied Personnel Research
>>> 62 Candlewood Road
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=62+Candlewood+Road+%0D%0A++++++++++++++++++++++++Scarsdale,+NY+10583&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>> Scarsdale, NY 10583-6040
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/joelwiesen
>>> (617) 244-8859
>>> http://appliedpersonnelresearch.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or
>>> legally privileged information. Please do not forward any contents without
>>> permission. If you have received this message in error please destroy all
>>> copies, completely remove it from your computer, and notify the sender.
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________
>>> IPAC-List
>>> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> IPAC-ListIPAC-List at ipacweb.orghttps://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_-7935749934904544767_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>

-- 
Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP
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/20180410/4e2fdd80/attachment-0001.html>