Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Chasing the Title VII Holy Grail: The Pitfalls of Guaranteeing Adverse Impact Elimination

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided industrial/organizational (I/O) psychologists with a unique role as professional test developers and consultants involved in assisting organizations in establishing the job-relatedness/validity defense to charges of discrimination, specifically charges based on an adverse or disparate impact theory. However, these activities have transmogrified into the fairly common occurrence of public municipalities and organizations demanding the reduction or absence of adverse impact as part of the scope of work or contracts and for practitioners and consultants to guarantee adverse impact reduction or elimination a priori. Plaintiffs and their experts also routinely argue that the observed adverse impact could have been allayed or eliminated if the defendant had only just used alternative testing methods. This then begs the following question: “Are there well established techniques and procedures that can reduce, minimize, or eliminate adverse impact in a predictable, generalizable, and replicable fashion in the same manner that we might guarantee validity?” The present paper seeks to answer this question.

Approach and Findings

With the preceding as a backdrop, the present paper identifies and discusses four overlooked critical attributes of adverse impact that collectively and in conjunction work against and obviate adverse impact reduction and elimination guarantees.

Conclusions and Implications

We conclude that the search for guaranteed adverse impact reduction or elimination is a “Holy Grail” and that we should avoid predictions and guarantees regarding adverse impact elimination in specific situations, including those based on the inclusion of “alternative” selection devices. However, in the context of civil rights legislation, and the intersection of I/O psychologists with said legislation, what we can guarantee as a science and profession are sound and valid tests and assessment devices that can be defended accordingly should the use of said tests and devices be challenged.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We would like to thank the editor for drawing our attention to this point.

References

  • Aguinis, H., Cascio, W., Goldstein, I., Outtz, J., & Zedeck, S. (2009). In The Supreme Court of the United States: Ricci v. DeStefano: Brief of Industrial-Organizational Psychologists as Amici Curiae in support of respondents.

  • Anderson, N., Lievens, F., van Dam, K., & Born, M. (2006). A construct-driven investigation of gender differences in a leadership-role assessment center. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 555–566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W., Jr., & Day, E. A. (2011). Assessment centers. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Volume 2, Selecting and developing members for the organization (pp. 205–235). Washington, DC: APA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W., Jr., Day, E. A., McNelly, T. L., & Edens, P. S. (2003). Meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of assessment center dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 56, 125–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W., Jr., & Doverspike, D. (2005). Achieving diversity and reducing discrimination in the workplace through human resource management practices: Implications of research and theory for staffing, training, and rewarding performance. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 305–327). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W., Jr., Edwards, B. D., & Barrett, G. V. (2002). Multiple-choice and constructed-response tests of ability: Race-based subgroup performance differences on alternative paper-and-pencil test formats. Personnel Psychology, 55, 985–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W., Jr., & Villado, A. J. (2008). The importance of distinguishing between constructs and methods when comparing predictors in personnel selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 435–442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, G. V., Doverspike, D., & Arthur, W., Jr. (1995). The current status of the judicial review of banding: A clarification. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 33(1), 39–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, G. V., Miguel, R. F., & Doverspike, D. (2011). The Uniform Guidelines: Better the devil you know. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 534–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biddle, D. A. (2010). Should employers rely on local validation studies or validity generalization (VG) to support the use of employment tests in Title VII situations? Public Personnel Management, 39, 307–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddle, D. A. (2011). Adverse impact and test validation: A practitioner’s handbook. Concord, MA: Infinity Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddle, D. A., & Morris, S. B. (2011). Using Lancaster’s mid-P correction to the Fisher’s exact test for adverse impact analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 956–965.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bobko, P., & Roth, P. L. (2004). Personnel selection with top-score-references banding: On the inappropriateness of current procedures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 291–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., & Buster, M. A. (2005). Work sample tests and expected reduction in adverse impact: A cautionary note. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 143–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christian, M. S., Edwards, B. D., & Bradley, J. C. (2010). Situational judgment tests: Constructs assessed and a meta-analysis of their criterion-related validities. Personnel Psychology, 63, 83–117. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01163.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241).

  • Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. CC 1981, 200e et seq.

  • Cohen, D. B., Aamodt, M. G., & Dunleavy, E. M. (2010). Technical advisory committee report on best practices in adverse impact analyses. Washington, DC: Center for Corporate Equality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, M. A., Roth, P. L., & Bobko, P. (2008). Ethnic and gender subgroup differences in assessment center ratings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 685–691.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dwight Bazile et al., v. City of Houston. (2012). C.A. No. H-08-2404. United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

  • Edwards, B. D., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2007). An examination of factors contributing to a reduction in subgroup differences on a constructed-response paper-and-pencil test of scholastic achievement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 794–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2006a). Equal Employment Opportunity Standard Form 100, Rev January 2006, Employer Information Report EEO-1 Instruction Booklet. Washington, DC: EEOC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2006b). EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 15 of the New Compliance Manual on “Race and Color Discrimination”. Number 915.003.

  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2011). ADA: Qualification standards; disparate impact. Retrieved November 17, 2011, from www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2011/ada_qualification_standards.html.

  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, & Department of Justice. (1978). Adoption by four agencies of uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43, 38290–38315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kronos. (2010). Case no. 2:09-mc-00079-ajs. www.ca3.uscourts/gov/opinarch/093219p.pdf.

  • Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43, 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foldes, H., Duehr, E. E., & Ones, D. S. (2008). Group differences in personality: Meta-analyses comparing five US racial groups. Personnel Psychology, 61, 579–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gastwirth, J. L. (1984). Statistical methods for analyzing claims of employment discrimination. Industrial and Labor Relations, 38, 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaze, R. M., Jarrett, S. M., Arthur, W., Jr., Schurig, I., & Taylor, J. E. (2011). Comparative evaluation of three situational judgment test response formats in terms of construct-related validity and subgroup differences. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

  • Goldstein, H. W., Yusko, K. P., & Nicolopoulos, V. (2001). Exploring black-white subgroup differences of managerial competencies. Personnel Psychology, 54, 783–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, L. S. (1988). Reconsidering fairness: A matter of social and ethical priorities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 293–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971). 401 U.S. 424.

  • Guardians v. Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, 630 F.2d 79 (2nd Cir. 1980).

  • Halpern, D. F. (1997). Sex differences in intelligence: Implications for education. American Psychologist, 52, 1091–1102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartigan, J. A., & Wigdor, A. K. (Eds.). (1989). Fairness in employment testing: Validity generalization, minority issues, and the general aptitude test battery. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe v. City of Akron. (2009). U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137344 (N.D. Ohio 2010).

  • Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 897–913.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Industrial and organizational psychology: Perspectives on science and practice, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 494–570 (2011).

  • Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimble v. Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, 690 F. Supp. 2d 765 (E.D. Wis. 2010).

  • Kroeck, K., Barrett, G. V., & Alexander, R. A. (1983). Imposed quotas and personnel selection: A computer simulation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis v. City of Chicago. (2010). U.S. LEXIS 4165 (Sup. Ct. Feb. 22, 2010).

  • McDaniel, M. A., Kepes, S., & Banks, G. C. (2011a). The uniform guidelines are a detriment to the field of personnel selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 494–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Kepes, S., & Banks, G. C. (2011b). Encouraging debate on the Uniform Guidelines and the disparate impact theory of discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 470–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2004). Measuring racial discrimination. Panel on methods for assessing discrimination. R. M. Blank, M. Dabady, & C. F. Citro (Eds.). Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. (2011). Affirmative action and nondiscrimination obligations of contractors and subcontractors regarding individuals with disabilities. Federal Register, 76, Number 237. Retrieved December, 9, 2011, from www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=OFCCP-2010-0001-0130.

  • Ones, D. S., & Anderson, N. (2002). Gender and ethnic group differences on personality scales in selection: Some British data. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ployhart, R. E., & Holtz, B. C. (2008). The diversity-validity dilemma: Strategies for reducing racioethnic and sex subgroup differences and adverse impact in selection. Personnel Psychology, 61, 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1996). An evaluation of two strategies for reducing adverse impact and their effects on criterion-related validity. Human Performance, 9, 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci v. DeStefano. (2009). 129 S. Ct. 2658.

  • Richman-Hirsch, W. L., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Examining the impact of administration medium on examinee perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 880–887.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblum, M. (2000). On the evolution of analytical proof, statistics, and the use of experts in EEO litigation. In J. L. Gastwirth (Ed.), Statistical science in the courtroom (pp. 161–194). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F. S., & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 297–330. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, P. L., Buster, M. A., & Barnes-Farrell, J. (2010). Work sample exams and gender adverse impact potential: The influence of self-concept, social skills, and written skills. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 117–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, T. L., Reynolds, D. H., & Campbell, J. P. (1994). Building a joint-service classification research roadmap: Individual differences measurement. AL/HR-TP-1994-0009. Armstrong Laboratory (AFMC), Human Resources Directorate, Manpower and Personnel Research Division, Brooks AFB, TX.

  • Ryan, A. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Friedel, L. A. (1998). Using personality testing to reduce adverse impact: A cautionary note. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 298–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, P. R. (2011). The Uniform Guidelines is not a scientific document: Implications for expert testimony. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 545–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, P. R., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J., & Kabin, M. B. (2001). High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education: Prospects in a post-affirmative-action world. American Psychologist, 56, 302–318.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L. (2011). A theory of sex differences in technical aptitude and some supporting evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 560–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, N., & Mills, A. E. (2001). Traditional tests and job simulations: Minority and majority performance and test validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 451–458.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Semple, J. B. (1990–1991). Note, Invisible Man: Black and male under Title VII. Harvard Law Review, 104, 749–768.

  • Sharf, J. C. (2011). Equal employment versus equal opportunity: A naked political agenda covered by a scientific fig leaf. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 537–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Cooper Institute. (2011). The cooper standards. Dallas, TX: The Cooper Institute. Retrieved December, 18, 2011, from http://www.cooperinstitute.org/law-fire-military.

  • The White House. (2011). The American Jobs Act: President Obama’s plan to grow jobs now. Washington, DC: The White House. Released September 11, 2011. PDF retrieved online from www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/reports/american-jobs-act.pdf.

  • Thornton, G. C., III, & Rupp, D. E. (2006). Assessment centers in human resource management: Strategies for prediction, diagnosis, and development. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonowski, R. (2011a, September 6–7). In public safety testing, it’s 1980 again. Assessment Center Council News.

  • Tonowski, R. (2011b, March 20–23). The best of times, the worst of times (for discrimination cases). Assessment Center Council News.

  • U. S. v. The City of New York. (2010). 683 F. Supp. 2d 225; 2010 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 2056; 108 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 415, January 13, 2010.

  • U. S. v. The City of New York. (2011). 2011 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 115074 (E.D.N.Y, October 5, 2011).

  • Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. (2011). U.S. LEXIS 4567 (Sup. Ct. 2011).

  • Woodworth, R. S. (1910). Racial differences in mental traits. Science, 31, 171–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX, 77843-4235, USA

    Winfred Arthur Jr.

  2. University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA

    Dennis Doverspike

  3. Barrett & Associates, Inc., Cuyahoga Falls, OH, USA

    Gerald V. Barrett

  4. John Carroll University, University Heights, OH, USA

    Rosanna Miguel

Authors
  1. Winfred Arthur Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dennis Doverspike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerald V. Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rosanna Miguel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Winfred Arthur Jr..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arthur, W., Doverspike, D., Barrett, G.V. et al. Chasing the Title VII Holy Grail: The Pitfalls of Guaranteeing Adverse Impact Elimination. J Bus Psychol 28, 473–485 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9289-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9289-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation