Advertisement

Statistical Evidence of Discrimination: The Randomization Test

  • Richard L. Scheaffer
  • Ann Watkins
  • Mrudulla Gnanadesikan
  • Jeffrey A. Witmer
Part of the Textbooks in mathematical sciences book series (TIMS)

Abstract

In 1972, 48 male bank supervisors were each given the came personnel file and asked to judge whether the person should be promoted to a branch manager job that was described as “routine” or the person’s file held and other applicants interviewed. The files were identical except that half of them showed that the file was that of a female and half showed that the file was that of a male. Of the 24 “male” files, 21 were recommended for promotion Of the 24 “female” files, 14 were recommended for promotion (B.Rosen and T. Jerdee(1974),“Influence of sex role stereotypes on personnel decisions,” J. Applied Psychology, 59:9–14.)

Keywords

Number Line Randomization Test Employment Discrimination Statistical Proof Disparate Impact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

Some very readable references on the randomization test (sometimes called the permutation test) include these three:

  1. 1.
    Peter Barbella, Lorraine J. Denby, and James M. Landwehr (1990), “Beyond exploratory data analysis: The randomization test,” The Mathematics Teacher, 83 (February): 144 - 149.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frederick Mosteller and Robert E. K. Rourke (1973), Sturdy Statistics: Nonparametric and Order Statistics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 12 - 23.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sandy L. Zabell (1989), “Statistical proof of employment discrimination,” in Judith M. Tanur et al. (eds.), Statistics: A Guide to the Unknown, third ed., Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 79 - 86.Google Scholar

The following references are also of use

  1. 1.
    Eugene S. Edgington, "Randomization Tests," UMAP Module 487, COMAP, Lexington, MA 02173 (Phone 617/862-7878).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eugene S. Edgington (1987), Randomization Tests, second ed., New York: Marcel Dekker.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Richard J. Larsen and Donna Fox Stroup (1976), Statistics in the Real World: A Book of Examples, New York: Macmillan, pp. 205 - 207.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paul Meier, Jerome Sacks, and Sandy L. Zabell (1984), "What happened in Hazelwood: Statistics, employment discrimination, and the 80% rule," American Bar Foundation Research Journal (Winter):139-186.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    John A. Rice (1988), Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis,Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 434-436 and 452.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sandy L. Zabell, “Statistical proof of employment discrimination,” in Judith M. Tanur (1989), Statistics: A Guide to the Unknown, third ed., Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 79 - 86.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. Scheaffer
    • 1
  • Ann Watkins
    • 2
  • Mrudulla Gnanadesikan
    • 3
  • Jeffrey A. Witmer
    • 4
  1. 1.University of FloridaUSA
  2. 2.California State UniversityNorthridgeUSA
  3. 3.Fairleigh Dickinson UniversityUSA
  4. 4.Oberlin CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations