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

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.

Ongoing issues in test fairness

“…Barrett et al (2011) proposed the vague recommendation that "researchers should collaborate and engage in a professional discussion of ethnic group differences in test scores" (p. 535). And as McDaniel et al (2011a) observed, the courts are unlikely to change their practices without fundamental changes to the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Yet, these authors other than seeking to "foster constructive debate" (2011a, p. 570), admit "no substantive experience in how to resolve the unfortunate situation with the Uniform Guidelines" (2011b, p. 509).…”

“…First, they argued that both the constructs and methods of measurement must be similar for VG to apply to a local test, and "Though the Principles address VG, they do not support its cavalier use" (p. 548). Second, they noted that while McDaniel et al (2011a) provided evidence of group differences on many important selection variables, one was notably absent from their list: job performance. This is important to consider because the Black versus White gap in performance is considerably smaller than many other predictors of job success.…”

“…Indeed, McDaniel et al (2011a) suggested this should be the case in identifying the limitations of the Uniform Guidelines in addressing the diversity-validity dilemma. Tonowski also pointed out that a set of revised Standards will shortly be published, and the Principles may have to be revised accordingly prior to an attempt to revise the Uniform Guidelines.…”

“…They argued that many of the criticisms lodged by McDaniel et al (2011b) are adequately addressed in the Uniform Guidelines, but also in questions and answers (Q&As) provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 1979(EEOC, , 1980, which McDaniel et al omitted from their discussion. The thesis of Brink and Crenshaw is that the majority of their arguments [McDaniel et al, 2011a] are either incorrect assertions, beliefs presented without basis in established fact, or trivial in terms of implications for practitionersEducational Research and Evaluation none are significant enough for the Uniform Guidelines to be considered a detriment or rise to the level of calling for the Uniform Guidelines to be rescinded. (p. 547) A selection of the critiques offered by Brink and Crenshaw includes the role of validity generalization (VG), the gap in selection test means for White and minority job candidates, and the roles of science and law in employment regulations.…”

“…Yet, these authors other than seeking to "foster constructive debate" (2011a, p. 570), admit "no substantive experience in how to resolve the unfortunate situation with the Uniform Guidelines" (2011b, p. 509). Ultimately, the manner in which McDaniel et al (2011a) responded, in their rejoinder, to the challenge of Brink and Crenshaw (2011) suggests little common ground: "the commentary [Brink and Crenshaw] appears ideologically driven, in part, because it assumes that it is acceptable for governmental officials to manipulate and deny research findings to advance political goals" (p. 569), and "We encourage individuals and professional organizations to continue this debate until detriments to the professional practice of personnel selection have been neutralized" (p. 570).…”