Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T10:59:09.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Encouraging Debate on the Uniform Guidelines and the Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Michael A. McDaniel ,
Sven Kepes  and
George C. Banks
Michael A. McDaniel*
Affiliation:
Virginia Commonwealth University
Sven Kepes
Affiliation:
Virginia Commonwealth University
George C. Banks
Affiliation:
Virginia Commonwealth University
*
E-mail: mamcdani@vcu.edu, Address: Department of Management, Virginia Commonwealth University, Snead Hall, 301 W. Main St., PO Box 844000, Richmond, VA 23284-4000
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This response summarizes commentaries on the M. A. McDaniel, S. Kepes, and G. C. Banks (2011) article, which argued that the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures are a detriment to the field of personnel selection. Several themes were present in the commentaries. No compelling arguments were presented to dispute the assertion that mean racial differences in job-related attributes will be with us for a long time. However, compelling arguments were made that the disparate impact theory of discrimination is a more central issue for personnel selection than the Uniform Guidelines. Similarly, arguments were presented that the assessment of adverse impact is problematic and that expert witness testimony needs improvement. Areas in need of further investigation were also identified. Finally, the role of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) in guiding regulatory, legislative, and court actions was considered.

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 566 - 570
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2011 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albemarle Paper v. Moody. (1975). 422 U.S. at 423, 95 S.Ct. 2362.Google Scholar
Barrett, G. V. (2010, April). Applying law to the facts: The failure of Ricci in the lower courts and success in the Supreme Court. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Barrett, G. V., Doverspike, D., & Young, C. M. (2010). The special case of public sector police and fire selection. In Scott, J. C. & Reynolds, D. H. (Eds.), Handbook of workplace assessment: Selecting and developing organizational talent (pp. 437–462). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 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.Google Scholar
Briner, R. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Evidence-based I–O psychology: Not there yet but now a little nearer? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 76–82. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01301.x.Google Scholar
Brink, K. E., & Crenshaw, J. L. (2011). The affronting of the Uniform Guidelines: From propaganda to discourse. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 547–553.Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J., & Papierno, P. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap glosing: When the “have-nots” gain but the “haves” gain even more. American Psychologist, 60, 149–160. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.60.2.149.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, E. M., Aamodt, M. G., Morgan, D. A., Gutman, A., & Cohen, D. B. (2011). Guidelines, principles, standards, and the courts: Why can't they all just get along? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 515–520.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, E. M., & Gutman, A. (2009). Fasten your seatbelts: Supreme Court to hear Ricci v. DeStefano . The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 46, 31–43. Google Scholar
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971). 401 U.S.424.Google Scholar
Hanges, P. J., Aiken, J. R., & Salmon, E. D. (2011). The devil is in the details (and the context): A call for care in discussing the Uniform Guidelines. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 562–565.Google Scholar
Jacobs, R., Deckert, P. J., & Silva, J. (2011). Adverse impact is far more complicated than the Uniform Guidelines indicate. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 558–561.Google Scholar
Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Shaffer, J., & Schmidt, F. L. (2007). Implications of methodological advances for the practice of personnel selection: How practitioners benefit from meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 6–15. Google Scholar
Lewis v. City of Chicago. (2010). 130 S. Ct. 2191.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Kepes, S., & Banks, G. C. (2011). The Uniform Guidelines are a detriment to the field of personnel selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 494–514.Google Scholar
McKay, P. F., & McDaniel, M. A. (2006). A reexamination of black-white mean differences in work performance: More data, more moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 538–554. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.538.Google Scholar
Mead, A. D., & Morris, S. B. (2011). About babies and bathwater: Retaining core principles of the Uniform Guidelines. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 554–557.Google Scholar
Morris, S. B., & Lobsenz, R. E. (2000). Significance tests and confidence intervals for the adverse impact ratio. Personnel Psychology, 53, 89–111. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00195.x.Google Scholar
Outtz, J. L. (2011). Abolishing the Uniform Guidelines: Be careful what you wish for. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 526–533.Google Scholar
Reynolds, D. H., & Knapp, D. J. (2011). SIOP as advocate: Developing a platform for action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 540–544.Google Scholar
Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., & Switzer, F. S. (2006). Modeling the behavior of the 4/5ths rule for determining adverse impact: Reasons for caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 507–522. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.507.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.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Pearlman, K. (1981). Task differences as moderators of aptitude test validity in selection: A red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 166–185. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.66.2.166.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Tonowski, R. F. (2011). The Uniform Guidelines and personnel selection: Identify and fix the right problem. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 521–525.Google Scholar