Page images
PDF
EPUB

question. Where a user has adopted an C. Guidelines are consistent with affirmative action program, the Feder- professional standards. The provisions al enforcement agencies will consider of these guidelines relating to validathe provisions of that program, includ. tion of selection procedures are ining the goals and timetables which the tended to be consistent with generally user has adopted and the progress accepted professional standards for which the user has made in carrying evaluating standardized tests and out that program and in meeting the other selection procedures, such as goals and timetables. While such af. those described in the Standards for firmative action programs may in Educational and Psychological Tests design and execution be race, color,

prepared by a joint committee of the sex, or ethnic conscious, selection pro American Psychological Association, cedures under such programs should the American Educational Research be based upon the ability or relative

Association, and the National Council ability to do the work.

on Measurement in Education (Ameri

can Psychological Association, Wash$ 60-3.5 General standards for validity ington, D.C., 1974) (hereinafter studies.

“A.P.A. Standards”) and standard

textbooks and journals in the field of A. Acceptable types of validity stud

personnel selection. ies. For the purposes of satisfying

D. Need for documentation of validthese guidelines, users may rely upon

ity. For any selection procedure which criterion-related validity studies, con

is part of a selection process which has tent validity studies or construct valid

an adverse impact and which selection ity studies, in accordance with the

procedure has an adverse impact, each standards set forth in the technical

user should maintain and have availastandards of these guidelines, section

ble such documentation as is described 14 below. New strategies for showing

in section 15 below. the validity of selection procedures

E. Accuracy and standardization. will be evaluated as they become ac

Validity studies should be carried out cepted by the psychological profes

under conditions which assure insofar sion.

as possible the adequacy and accuracy B. Criterion-related content, and of the research and the report. Selecconstruct validity. Evidence of the va

tion procedures should be adminislidity of a test or other selection proce- tered and scored under standardized dure by a criterion-related validity conditions. study should consist of empirical data

F. Caution against selection on basis demonstrating that the selection pro of knowledges, skills, or ability learned cedure is predictive of or significantly

in brief orientation period. In general, correlated with important elements of

users should avoid making employjob performance. See 14B below. Evi- ment decisions on the basis of measdence of the validity of a test or other ures of knowledges, skills, or abilities selection procedure by a content valid which are normally learned in a brief ity study should consist of data show orientation period, and which have an ing that the content of the selection adverse impact. procedure is representative of impor- G. Method of use of selection procetant aspects of performance on the job dures. The evidence of both the validfor which the candidates are to be ity and utility of a selection procedure evaluated. See 14C below. Evidence of should support the method the user the validity of a test or other selection chooses for operational use of the proprocedure through a construct validity cedure, if that method of use has a study should consist of data showing greater adverse impact than another that the procedure measures the method of use. Evidence which may be degree to which candidates have iden sufficient to support the use of a selectifiable characteristics which have tion procedure on a pass/fail (screenbeen determined to be important in ing) basis may be insufficient to supsuccessful performance in the job for port the use of the same procedure on which the candidates are to be evalu- a ranking basis under these guidelines. ated. See section 14D below.

Thus, if a user decides to use a selec

tion procedure on a ranking basis, and J. Interim use of selection procethat method of use has a greater ad dures. Users may continue the use of a verse impact than use on an appropri. selection procedure which is not at the ate pass/fail basis (see section 5H moment fully supported by the rebelow), the user should have sufficient quired evidence of validity, provided: evidence of validity and utility to sup- (1) The user has available substantial port the use on a ranking basis. See evidence of validity, and (2) the user sections 3B, 14B (5) and (6), and 14C has in progress, when technically fea(8) and (9).

sible, a study which is designed to proH. Cutoff scores. Where cutoff scores duce the additional evidence required are used, they should normally be set by these guidelines within a reasonso as to be reasonable and consistent able time. If such a study is not techwith normal expectations of accept- nically feasible, see section 6B. If the able proficiency within the work force. study does not demonstrate validity, Where applicants are ranked on the this provision of these guidelines for basis of properly validated selection interim use shall not constitute a deprocedures and those applicants scor fense in any action, nor shall it relieve ing below a higher cutoff score than the user of any obligations arising appropriate in light of such expecta. under Federal law. tions have little or no chance of being

K. Review of validity studies for curselected for employment, the higher

rency. Whenever validity has been cutoff score may be appropriate, but

shown in accord with these guidelines the degree of adverse impact should be

for the use of a particular selection considered.

procedure for a job or group of jobs, I. Use of selection procedures for

additional studies need not be perhigher level jobs. If job progression

formed until such time as the validity structures are so established that em

study is subject to review as provided ployees will probably, within a reason

in section 3B above. There are no abable period of time and in a majority

solutes in the area of determining the of cases, progress to a higher level, it

currency of a validity study. All cirmay be considered that the applicants

cumstances concerning the study, inare being evaluated for a job or jobs at

cluding the validation strategy used, the higher level. However, where job

and changes in the relevant labor progression is not so nearly automatic,

market and the job should be considor the time span is such that higher

ered in the determination of when a level jobs or employees' potential may

validity study is outdated. be expected to change in significant ways, it should be considered that ap

that ap.

860-26 Use of select

$ 60-3.6 Use of selection procedures which plicants are being evaluated for a job

have not been validated. at or near the entry level. A “reasonable period of time” will vary for dif- A. Use of alternate selection proceferent jobs and employment situations dures to eliminate adverse impact. A but will seldom be more than 5 years.

user may choose to utilize alternative Use of selection procedures to evaluate

selection procedures in order to elimiapplicants for a higher level job would nate adverse impact or as part of an not be appropriate:

affirmative action program. See sec(1) If the majority of those remain

tion 13 below. Such alternative proceing employed do not progress to the

dures should eliminate the adverse higher level job;

impact in the total selection process, (2) If there is a reason to doubt that should be lawful and should be as job the higher level job will continue to related as possible. require essentially similar skills during B. Where validity studies cannot or the progression period; or

need not be performed. There are cir(3) If the selection procedures meas- cumstances in which a user cannot or ure knowledges, skills, or abilities re need not utilize the validation techquired for advancement which would niques contemplated by these guidebe expected to develop principally lines. In such circumstances, the user from the training or experience on the should utilize selection procedures job.

which are as job related as possible

and which will minimize or eliminate will be considered acceptable for use adverse impact, as set forth below. by another user when the following

(1) Where informal or unscored pro- requirements are met: cedures are used. When an informal or (1) Validity evidence. Evidence from unscored selection procedure which the available studies meeting the has an adverse impact is utilized, the standards of section 14B below clearly user should eliminate the adverse demonstrates that the selection proceimpact, or modify the procedure to dure is valid; one which is a formal, scored or quan (2) Job similarity. The incumbents tified measure or combination of in the user's job and the incumbents measures and then validate the proce- in the job or group of jobs on which dure in accord with these guidelines, the validity study was conducted peror otherwise justify continued use of form substantially the same major the procedure in accord with Federal work behaviors, as shown by appropri. law.

ate job analyses both on the job or (2) Where formal and scored proce- group of jobs on which the validity dures are used. When a formal and study was performed and on the job scored selection procedure is used for which the selection procedure is to which has an adverse impact, the vali. be used; and dation techniques contemplated by (3) Fairness evidence. The studies inthese guidelines usually should be fol- clude a study of test fairness for each lowed if technically feasible. Where race, sex, and ethnic group which conthe user cannot or need not follow the stitutes a significant factor in the borvalidation techniques anticipated by rowing user's relevant labor market these guidelines, the user should for the job or jobs in question. If the either modify the procedure to elimi studies under consideration satisfy (1) nate adverse impact or otherwise justi and (2) above but do not contain an infy continued use of the procedure in vestigation of test fairness, and it is accord with Federal law.

not technically feasible for the bor

rowing user to conduct an internal $ 60-3.7 Use of other validity studies.

study of test fairness, the borrowing A. Validity studies not conducted by user may utilize the study until studthe user. Users may, under certain cir- ies conducted elsewhere meeting the cumstances, support the use of selec- requirements of these guidelines show tion procedures by validity studies test unfairness, or until such time as it conducted by other users or conducted becomes technically feasible to conby test publishers or distributors and duct an internal study of test fairness described in test manuals. While pub- and the results of that study can be lishers of selection procedures have a acted upon. Users obtaining selection professional obligation to provide evi. procedures from publishers should dence of validity which meets general consider, as one factor in the decision ly accepted professional standards (see to purchase a particular selection prosection 5C above), users are cautioned cedure, the availability of evidence that they are responsible for compli- concerning test fairness. ance with these guidelines. According C. Validity evidence from multiunit ly, users seeking to obtain selection study. if validity evidence from a study procedures from publishers and dis- covering more than one unit within an tributors should be careful to deter- organization statisfies the requiremine that, in the event the user be- ments of section 14B below, evidence comes subject to the validity require of validity specific to each unit will ments of these guidelines, the neces- not be required unless there are variasary information to support validity bles which are likely to affect validity has been determined and will be made significantly. available to the user.

D. Other significant variables. If B. Use of criterion-related validity there are variables in the other studies evidence from other sources. Criterion which are likely to affect validity sig. related validity studies conducted by nificantly, the user may not rely upon one test user, or described in test man such studies, but will be expected uals and the professional literature, either to conduct an internal validity

study or to comply with section 6 cies, which agrees to a request by an above.

employer or labor organization to

device and utilize a selection proce$ 60-3.8 Cooperative studies.

dure should follow the standards in A. Encouragement of cooperative these guidelines for determining adstudies. The agencies issuing these verse impact. If adverse impact exists guidelines encourage employers, labor the agency should comply with these organizations, and employment agen guidelines. An employment agency is cies to cooperate in research, develop- not relieved of its obligation herein bement, search for lawful alternatives, cause the user did not request such and validity studies in order to achieve validation or has requested the use of procedures which are consistent with some lesser standard of validation these guidelines.

than is provided in these guidelines. B. Standards for use of cooperative The use of an employment agency studies. If validity evidence from a co- does not relieve an employer or labor operative study satisfies the require- organization or other user of its rements of section 14 below, evidence of sponsibilities under Federal law to validity specific to each user will not provide equal employment opportunibe required unless there are variables ty or its obligations as a user under in the user's situation which are likely these guidelines. to affect validity significantly.

B. Where selection procedures are de

vised elsewhere. Where an employ§ 60-3.9 No assumption of validity.

ment agency or service is requested to A. Unacceptable substitutes for evi- administer a selection procedure dence of validity. Under no circum which has been devised elsewhere and stances will the general reputation of to make referrals pursuant to the rea test or other selection procedures, its sults, the employment agency or seryauthor or its publisher, or casual re- ice should maintain and have available ports of it's validity be accepted in lieu evidence of the impact of the selection of evidence of validity. Specifically and referral procedures which it adruled out are: assumptions of validity ministers. If adverse impact results based on a procedure's name or de- the agency or service should comply scriptive labels; all forms of promo with these guidelines. If the agency or tional literature; data bearing on the service seeks to comply with these frequency of a procedure's usage; testi- guidelines by reliance upon validity monial statements and credentials of studies or other data in the possession sellers, users, or consultants; and other of the employer, it should obtain and nonempirical or anecdotal accounts of have available such information. selection practices or selection outcomes.

$ 60-3.11 Disparate treatment. B. Encouragement of professional The principles of disparate or unsupervision. Professional supervision equal treatment must be distinguished of selection activities is encouraged from the concepts of validation. A sebut is not a substitute for documented lection procedure-even though valievidence of validity. The enforcement dated against job performance in acagencies will take into account the cordance with these guidelinesfact that a thorough job analysis was cannot be imposed upon members of a conducted and that careful develop- race, sex, or ethnic group where other ment and use of a selection procedure employees, applicants, or members in accordance with professional stand have not been subjected to that standards enhance the probability that the ard. Disparate treatment occurs where selection procedure is valid for the job. members of a race, sex, or ethnic

group have been denied the same em$ 60-3.10 Employment agencies and em

ployment, promotion, membership, or ployment services.

other employment opportunities as A. Where selection procedures are de have been available to other employvised by agency. An employment ees or applicants. Those employees or agency, including private employment applicants who have been denied equal agencies and State employment agen- treatment, because of prior discrimina17.

tory practices or policies, must at least cies issuing and endorsing these guidebe afforded the same opportunities as lines endorse for all private employers had existed for other employees or ap and reaffirm for all governmental emplicants during the period of discrimi. ployers the Equal Employment Oppornation. Thus, the persons who were in tunity Coordinating Council's “Policy the class of persons discriminated Statement on Affirmative Action Proagainst during the period the user fol grams for State and Local Governlowed the discriminatory practices ment Agencies” (41 FR 38814, Septemshould be allowed the opportunity to ber 13, 1976). That policy statement is qualify under less stringent selection attached hereto as appendix, section procedures previously followed, unless the user demonstrates that the increased standards are required by busi

TECHNICAL STANDARDS ness necessity. This section does not prohibit a user who has not previously

$ 60-3.14 Technical standards for validity followed merit standards from adopt

studies. ing merit standards which are in com The following minimum standards, pliance with these guidelines; nor does as applicable, should be met in conit preclude a user who has previously ducting a validity study. Nothing in used invalid or unvalidated selection these guidelines is intended to preprocedures from developing and using clude the development and use of procedures which are in accord with other professionally acceptable techthese guidelines.

niques with respect to validation of se

lection procedures. Where it is not § 60-3.12 Retesting of applicants.

technically feasible for a user to conUsers should provide a reasonable duct a validity study, the user has the opportunity for retesting and recon obligation otherwise to comply with sideration. Where examinations are these guidelines. See sections 6 and 7 administered periodically with public above. notice, such reasonable opportunity A. Validity studies should be based exists, unless persons who have previ- on review of information about the ously been tested are precluded from job. Any validity study should be retesting. The user may however take based upon a review of information reasonable steps to preserve the secu- about the job for which the selection rity of its procedures.

procedure is to be used. The review

should include a job analysis except as $ 60-3.13 Affirmative action.

provided in section 14B(3) below with A. Affirmative action obligations. respect to criterion-related validity. The use of selection procedures which Any method of job analysis may be have been validated pursuant to these used if it provides the information reguidelines does not relieve users of any quired for the specific validation stratobligations they may have to under- egy used. take affirmative action to assure equal B. Techniccl standards for criterionemployment opportunity. Nothing in related validity studies.-(1) Technical these guidelines is intended to pre- feasibility. Users choosing to validate clude the use of lawful selection proce- a selection procedure by a criterion-redures which assist in remedying the lated validity strategy should detereffects of prior discriminatory prac mine whether it is technically feasible tices, or the achievement of affirma (as defined in section 16) to conduct tive action objectives.

such a study in the particular employB. Encouragement of voluntary af. ment context. The determination of firmative action programs. These the number of persons necessary to guidelines are also intended to encour- permit the conduct of a meaningful age the adoption and implementation criterion-related study should be made of voluntary affirmative action pro- by the user on the basis of all relevant grams by users who have no obligation information concerning the selection under Federal law to adopt them; but procedure, the potential sample and are not intended to impose any new the employment situation. Where apobligations in that regard. The agen propriate, jobs with substantially the

« PreviousContinue »