The Devil Is in the Details (and the Context): A Call for Care in Discussing the Uniform Guidelines

Abstract

In this commentary, we analyze two problematic overgeneralizations in their article. First, we discuss their alternative hypothesis that ''the employment test is an accurate assessment of subgroup differences in job-related attributes.'' Second, we address their conclusion that the probability of closing the achievement gap is low. We are primarily concerned by inferences readers may draw from McDaniel et al.'s article, and we provide theory and evidence to suggest that these issues are more complicated than they initially appear. Implicit Assumptions and Alternative HypothesesIn their article, McDaniel et al. suggested that ''an implicit assumption of the Uniform

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

“…Only two commentaries expressed sentiments contrary to our position regarding mean racial differences. Hanges, Aiken, and Salmon (2011) stated that the “gap between advantaged–disadvantaged groups is not intractable,” but in our opinion, the commentators did not offer much support for their position. We also note that our focal article never argued that the mean racial differences are intractable; it argued that they would be with us for some time into the future and that one should not necessarily assume that interventions will minimize them; and that, unfortunately, there is the potential for an increase in the mean racial differences (Ceci & Papierno, 2005).…”

“…Related to the topic of revision are assertions that the Uniform Guidelines are not a scientific document and were never really meant to be a scientific document (Outtz, 2011; Sackett, 2011; Sharf, 2011). Still, as most commentaries asserted, the current state of the Uniform Guidelines , and the associated federal and case law, is undesirable (Dunleavy et al, 2011; Hanges et al, 2011; Jacobs et al, 2011; Mead & Morris, 2011; Sackett, 2011; Sharf, 2011).…”

“…Some commentaries questioned the knowledge of the focal article authors, the need for better statistical procedures (e.g., Jacobs et al, 2011; Mead & Morris, 2011) and alternative approaches to validity evidence (Mead & Morris, 2011). They stated concerns about the state of our statistical procedures for generating cumulative knowledge (Brink & Crenshaw, 2011) and an observation that the field does not yet have complete knowledge with respect to cognitive ability and mean racial differences (Hanges et al 2011).…”

Ongoing issues in test fairness

“…This poses a strong challenge for selection research on external evidence. Third, it would be useful to clarify whether the enduring observed score gaps on cognitive variables is an appropriate legal basis for rejecting the disparate impact theory of discrimination (Hanges, Aiken, & Salmon, 2011). After all, this argument would itself hinge to some degree on a legally suspect classification.…”

Legal issues in industrial testing and assessment.

“…Rather, demonstrating adverse impact simply establishes a prima facie case (prima facie is Latin for "on its first appearance"). Establishing a prima facie 6 case triggers further investigation into the employment practice in question (Guion, 1998;Gutman et al, 2011;Hanges, Aiken, & Salmon, 2011). It is at this stage that the court becomes interested in the psychometric quality of the employment practice and the validity of the inferences drawn from the practice.…”