Fair employment, sound psychometric practice, and reality: A dilemma and a partial solution.

Abstract

Title Seven of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has led to the establishment of guidelines for effective job selection (EEOC, 1966), and two federal agencies (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-EEOC-and Office of Federal Contracts Compliance -OFCC) have been set up to check how well Title Seven is being implemented. These regulatory agencies have incorporated the Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests and Manuals (APA, 1966) into their guidelines for effective selection. Furthermore, they have relied heavily on a panel of psychologists that, among other things, has recommended that the Commission [EEOC] advocate the use of a total personnel assessment system toward the attainment of equal employment opportunities for all Americans. The many components of an objective personnel assessment system, i.e., job analysis, development of criterion-related validity, psychological testing, recruitment, screening of applicants, interviewing, and the integration of pertinent personnel data, provide the employer with the basis for matching manpower requirements with human aptitudes and abilities that is most likely to be non-discriminatory within the spirit of the law.As this recommendation is implemented, selection procedures will not only become more fair than they are now, but a given company's selection efficiency 1 The author also has a part-time appointment at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.The author would like to thank Gertrude O'Leary for her conceptual suggestions, Monnie Sherberg for his critical comments, and Madge Zybko for her typing of the many manuscript revisions.Requests for reprints should be sent to Lawrence R.

Human resource managment in West Africa: practices and perceptions

“…This is in sharp contrast to the US where 60 per cent of the organizations use work samples. One reason for this difference may be the relative expense of work samples as selection devices that require additional equipment for their implementation (O'Leary, 1974;Reilly and Israelski, 1988). Thus their widespread use may not be financially feasible for many developing country organizations.…”

Werkmonsters as keuringstoetse

“…Die opvallendste voordeel van 'n geldige werkmonster is die ooreenkoms wat dit het met die werk waarvan dit 'n replika is. O'Leary (1973;1974) stel dit dat daar 'n direkte verband is tussen die taaksimulasie en die gedrag wat voorspel word. Om hierdie rede word daar dikwels hoë geldigheidkoëffisiënte behaal wanneer werkmonsters gebruik word om werkverrigting op spesifieke take te bepaal.…”

“…Vanweë die hoë inhoudsgeldigheid diskrimineer werkmonsters nie onregverdig tussen applikante vir die betrokke werk nie (Mount, Muchinsky en Hanser, 1977;O'Leary, 1973;Muchinsky, 1975;Taylor, 1982). In hierdie verband het Wernimont en Campbell (1968) gemeld dat persone wat lae tellings op keuringstoetse behaal gewoonlik afgekeur word sonder dat in ag geneem word dat sulke persone gedurende opleiding die toepaslike kennis en vaardighede wat nie deur die toets gemeet word nie, kan aanleer.…”

“…Baie toetse gebruik "middelklas"-konsepte en is onregverdig wanneer dit toegepas word op persone wat nie "middelklas"-konsepte ken nie of wat 'n lae opvoedkundige peil het (Wernimont and Campbell, 1968). Verder is sommige toetse kultuurgebonde (O'Leary, 1973;Taylor, 1982). Daar is gevind (Schmidt, Greenthal, Hunter, Berner en Seaton, 1977) dat Swartmense in 'n ongunstiger posisie ten opsigte van 'n toets as die werk self is, en dat werkmonsters hierdie probleem oorkom, aangesien die enigste verskille tussen rasse, verskille ten opsigte van werkverrigting is.…”

Job Samples as Tank Gunnery Performance Predictors

“…1) reducing response bias and faking compared to self reports of attitudes, heliefs and interests (Wernimont and Campbell, 1968), 2) minimizing the disadvantages for individuals who have limited education and/or low level verbal skills, and 3) providing the examinees with more realistic expectations about the job (Pruitt, 1970;O'Leary, 1973;and Farr, O'Leary and Bartlett, 1973). The latter of these advantages is of significant interest in light of research which has shown that realistic job previews can decrease the likelihood of subsequent voluntary resignations (Ilgen and Seeley, 1974).…”