Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 23, Issue 3–4, pp 103–114 | Cite as

Using the 4/5ths Rule as an Outcome in Regression Analyses: A Demonstrative Simulation

  • Eric M. Dunleavy
  • Karla M. Stuebing
  • James E. Campion
  • Dana M. Glenn
Article

Abstract

The adverse impact associated with personnel practices is an important issue for personnel psychologists. The purpose of this simulation study is to demonstrate the consequences of using the 4/5ths rule and the adverse impact ratio in analyses designed to predict adverse impact from human resource management (HRM) strategies. Results show that increasing (1) the total number of selections made and (2) the minority representation in the candidate pool may influence adverse impact differently depending on how adverse impact is measured. Specifically, using the 4/5ths rule as an outcome in logistic regression analyses led to unexpected findings regarding the effectiveness of HRM strategies designed to reduce adverse impact. On the other hand, using the adverse impact ratio as an outcome in linear regression analyses produced to intuitive findings.

Keywords

Adverse impact Employment discrimination litigation 4/5ths rule 

References

  1. Allison, P. D. (1999). Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, T. A., Facteau, J. D., & Facteau, C. L. (2004). Structured interviewing for OCB: Construct validity, faking, and the effects of question type. Human Performance, 17, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biddle, D. (2005). Adverse impact and test validation: A practitioners guide to valid and defensible employment testing. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., & Potosky, D. (1999). Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternate predictors, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 52, 561–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campion, M. A., Campion, J. E., & Hudson, J. P. (1994). Structured Interviewing: A note on incremental validity and alternative question types. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 988–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carretta, T. R. (1997). Group differences on US Air Force pilot selection tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Detection, 7, 249–253.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1991). The earth is round, (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cortina, J. M., Goldstein, N. B., Payne, S. C., Davison, H. K., & Gilliland, S. W. (2000). The incremental validity of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness scores. Personnel Psychology, 53, 325–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Corte, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. (2006). Predicting adverse impact and mean criterion performance in multistage selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 523–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doverspike, D., Winter, J. L., Healy, M. C., & Barrett, G. V. (1996). Simulations as a method of illustrating the impact of differential weights on personnel selection outcomes. Human Performance, 9, 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, & Department of Justice. (1978). Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43, 38290–38315.Google Scholar
  13. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1979). Adoption of questions and answers to clarify and provide common interpretation of the Uniform guidelines on employment selection procedures.Google Scholar
  14. Gutman, A. (2000). EEO law and personnel practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Gutman, A. (2003). Adverse impact: Why is it so difficult to understand? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 40(3), 42–50.Google Scholar
  16. Hattrup, K., Rock, J., & Scalia, C. (1997). The effects of varying conceptualizations of job performance on adverse impact, minority hiring, and predicted performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 656–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2000). Personnel selection: Looking toward the future-remembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 631–664.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection, and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence, and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., & Roth, P. L. (1999). Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  20. Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 897–913.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huselid, M., & Day, N. (1991). Organizational commitment, job involvement, and turnover: A substantive and methodological analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 380–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kehoe, J. F., & Olson, A. (2005). Cut scores in employment discrimination litigation. In Landy, F. J. (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Latham, G. P., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1995). Criterion-related validity of the situational and patterned behavior description interviews with Organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 8, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ledvinka, J., & Scarpello, V. G. (1992). Federal regulation of personnel and human resource management (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 19–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. G. (1993). Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical, Significance. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meier, P., Sacks, J., & Zabell, S. L. (1984). Statistics, employment discrimination, and the 80% rule. American Board Foundation Research Journal, 139.Google Scholar
  28. Morris, S. B., & Lobsenz, R. E. (2000). Significance tests and confidence intervals for the adverse impact ratio. Personnel Psychology, 53, 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murphy, K. R., Osten, K., & Myors, B. (1995). Modeling the effects of banding in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 48, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Murphy, K. R., & Shiarella, A. H. (1997). Implications of the multidimensional nature for the validity of selection tests: Multivariate frameworks for studying test validity. Personnel Psychology, 50, 823–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., & Switzer, F. S. (2006). Modeling the behavior of the 4/5ths rule for determining adverse impact: Reasons for caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 507–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roth, P. L., Huffcutt, A. I., & Bobko, P. (2003). Racial group differences in measures of job performance: A new meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 674–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rybecki, S. L. (1998). The big-five structured interview: Development and investigation of construct and interviewer validity. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59, 1400.Google Scholar
  34. Sackett, P. R., & Roth, L. (1996). Multi-stage selection strategies: A Monte Carlo investigation of effects on performance and minority hiring. Personnel Psychology, 49, 549–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sackett, P. R., & Wilke, S. L. (1994). Within-group norming and other forms of score adjustment in preemployment testing. American Psychologist, 49, 929–954.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Siskin, B. R., & Trippi, J. (2005). Statistical issues in employment litigation. In F. J. Landy (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Society for Industrial, Organizational Psychology (SIOP). (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). College Park, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  39. Stauffer, J., & Ree, M. J. (1996). Predicting with logistic or linear regression: Will it make a difference in who is selected for pilot training? The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Tam, A. P., Murphy, K. R., & Lyall, J. T. (2004). Can changes in differential dropout rates reduce adverse impact? A computer simulation study of a multi-wave selection system. Personnel Psychology, 57, 905–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zickar, M. J., & Slaughter, J. E. (2002). Computational modeling. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 185–197). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Ltd.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

  1. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975) 422 US 405.Google Scholar
  2. Castanza v. Partida (430 U. S., 482, 496, 1977).Google Scholar
  3. Clady v. County of Los Angeles (770 F.2d 1267, 9th Cir., 1985).Google Scholar
  4. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) 401 US 424.Google Scholar
  5. Grutter v. Bollinger. (2003) 02–241, 539 U. S.Google Scholar
  6. Hazelwood School District v. United States, (1977) 433 U.S. 299.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric M. Dunleavy
    • 1
  • Karla M. Stuebing
    • 2
  • James E. Campion
    • 3
  • Dana M. Glenn
    • 4
  1. 1.DCI Consulting GroupWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and StatisticsHoustonUSA
  3. 3.University of HoustonHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Association of American Medical CollegesWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations