Week 6 Staffing Decisions

Combinesinformationaccordingtoa mathematicalformula

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: s by regression (a compensatory approach) Multiple regression analysis Results in equation for combining test scores into a composite, weighted based on each predictor’s correlation with performance 27 Relationship Between Relationship Between Predictor Overlap & Criterion Prediction Figure 6.4 The Relationship between Predictor Overlap and Criterion Prediction 28 Combining Multiple Assessments Combining Multiple Assessments Multiple Cutoff Approach • Applicant must score above cutoff on each test – non­ compensatory Cog. Ability Personality Interview 29 Large Staffing Projects Large Staffing Projects Concessions must be made: Labor intensive Requires an actuarial strategy Utility can be an issue (Cost of testing can be assessment procedures are not feasible expensive) Fairness is a critical issue Standard, well­established, & feasible selection strategies are important 30 Small Staffing Projects Small Staffing Projects Luxury of using wider range of assessment tools Adverse impact is less of an issue Fairness is still a key issue Rational, job­related, & feasible selection strategies are important 31 Module 4: Legal Issues in Module 4: Legal Issues in Staffing Decisions Charges of employment discrimination Involve violations of Title VII of 1964 CRA, ADA, or ADEA I­O psychologists often serve as expert witnesses in these lawsuits Consequences can be substantial Most often brought by individual claiming unfair termination 32 Discrimination Discrimination The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment. Discrimination is what we hope to do; but only on the right details 33 Intentional Discrimination or Intentional Discrimination or Adverse Treatment Plaintiff attempts to show that employer treated plaintiff differently than majority applicants or employees AKA: Disparate Treatment 34 Hiring Discrimination Hiring Discrimination Disparate Treatment: • Evidence that a member of a protected group is treated differently from other job applicants Could discrimination (in the legal context) occur even if everyone is treated the same? • Consider Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) 35 Unintentional Discrimination or Unintentional Discrimination or Adverse Impact (AI) Acknowledges employer may not have intended to discriminate against plaintiff but employer practice had AI on group to which plaintiff belongs Everyone treated the same, but the outcome was substantially different based on group membership Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) 36 Determination of Adverse Determination Impact Burden of proof on plaintiff to show: a) he/she belongs to a protected group, & b) members of protected group were statistically disadvantaged compared to majority employees 37 “80%” or “4/5ths” rule Guideline for assessing whether there is evidence of AI Plaintiffs must show that protected group received only 80% of desirable outcomes received by majority group in order to meet burden of demonstrating AI Results in AI ratio 38 “80%” or “4/5ths” Rule (cont'd) Guideline set forth by EEOC IR = Minority Selection Rate Majority Selection Rate If IR ratio is less than .8, there is Adverse Impact Small samples affect results Bur...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/01/2013 for the course PSYC 371 taught by Professor Skinner during the Spring '12 term at Illinois Tech.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online