Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

VALIDITY AND FAIRNESS OF SOME ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES1

VALIDITY AND FAIRNESS OF SOME ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES1 Despite extensive evidence that tests are valid for employee selection, Federal Guidelines have urged employers to seek alternative selection procedures that are equally valid but have less adverse impact on minorities. Research on the validity, adverse impact and fairness of eight categories of alternatives was reviewed. Feasibility of operational use of each type of alternative in an employment setting was also discussed. Only biodata and peer evaluation were supported as having validities substantially equal to those for standardized tests. Previous reviews and more recent research indicated that interviews, self‐assessments, reference checks, academic achievement, expert judgment and projective techniques had levels of validity generally below those reported for tests. Data, where available, offered no clear indication that any of the alternatives met the criterion of having equal validity with less adverse impact. Results are discussed and several additional promising alternatives are described. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Personnel Psychology Wiley

VALIDITY AND FAIRNESS OF SOME ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES1

REILLY, RICHARD R.; CHAO, GEORGIA T.
Personnel Psychology , Volume 35 (1) – Jan 1, 1982
Download PDF
62 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/validity-and-fairness-of-some-alternative-employee-selection-YUP10PuVBg

References (97)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 Wiley Subscription Services
ISSN
0031-5826
eISSN
1744-6570
DOI
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1982.tb02184.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Despite extensive evidence that tests are valid for employee selection, Federal Guidelines have urged employers to seek alternative selection procedures that are equally valid but have less adverse impact on minorities. Research on the validity, adverse impact and fairness of eight categories of alternatives was reviewed. Feasibility of operational use of each type of alternative in an employment setting was also discussed. Only biodata and peer evaluation were supported as having validities substantially equal to those for standardized tests. Previous reviews and more recent research indicated that interviews, self‐assessments, reference checks, academic achievement, expert judgment and projective techniques had levels of validity generally below those reported for tests. Data, where available, offered no clear indication that any of the alternatives met the criterion of having equal validity with less adverse impact. Results are discussed and several additional promising alternatives are described.

Journal

Personnel Psychology – Wiley

Published: Jan 1, 1982

There are no references for this article.