Team 4 Case #4
HMRS 5435.01
Employee Planning, Staffing, & Selection
University of Houston – Clear Lake
Members:
Charlotte Duchesne, Kayla Gardner, Charlotte Horne,
Quyen Le, Tiffany Sweet, & Andrew Szymczak
HMRS 5435.01
Spring 2013, Group 4
Members: C. Duchesne, K. Gardner, C. Horne, Q. Le, T. Sweet, A. Szymczak
1. Is there any evidence of adverse impact against any race, sex, or ethnic groups?
The four-fifths rule or 80% rule is the simplest and most common way of estimating adverse impact.
The four-fifths rule is calculated first by finding the selection rate for each protected group (women and
minorities), which is equal to the total number of applicants within the group that are hired divided by
the total number of applicants within that group. Women= 12/35=0.3429, Blacks= 8/36=0.2222,
Hispanics= 40/102=0.3922. The selection rate of Men= 148/385= 0.3844 and Whites= 112/282= 0.3972.
The highest selection rate is Whites (0.3972). The impact ratio is found by dividing the highest selection
(0.3972) rate by each group’s selection rate. The impact ratio of Women= 0.8633, Blacks=0.5594,
Hispanics= 0.9874. According to the four-fifths rule, any impact ratio less than 0.8 is a four-fifths rule
violation, therefore, there is evidence of adverse impact against Blacks whose impact ratio, 0.5594, is
significantly less than 0.8.
2. If the total selection process for a job has no adverse impact, should the individual components of
the selection process be evaluated for adverse impact?
We find that in section 4C of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, the rule follows
that “If information shows that the total selection process does not have an adverse impact, the Federal
enforcement agencies, in the exercise of their administrative and prosecutorial discretion, in usual
circumstances, will not expect a user to evaluate the individual components for adverse impact…”
However, this section goes on to state that individual components should be evaluated for adverse
impact: (1) where the selection procedure is a significant factor in the continuation of patterns of
assignments of incumbent employees caused by prior discriminatory employment practices, and/or (2)
where the weight of court decisions or administrative interpretations hold that a specific procedure
(such as height or weight requirements or no-arrest records) is not job related in the same or similar
circumstances (uniformguidelines.com).
Although Uniform Guidelines are given “great weight” in many selection court cases, they are not the
last word. They are merely a reference for the judge and jury to make a verdict; the ultimate decision
rests on the court alone. By identifying job-related KSAOs (knowledge, skills, abilities, and other
characteristics), developing selection procedures to assess these KSAOs, and validating these
procedures, Santa and Burden are taking the appropriate steps to defend their multiple-hurdle selection
process in the event that they should need to.
HMRS 5435.01
Spring 2013, Group 4
Members: C. Duchesne, K. Gardner, C. Horne, Q. Le, T. Sweet, A. Szymczak
3. Which type of validation would you use? Why? What are the differences between content and
criterion validity studies?
For this situation, we would use a content validation study because it provides an assessment of the
selection measure and the job content relevance. It also is the kind of study that should be used when a
comprehensive job analysis is available or feasible. The KSAOs derived from the Task/Behavior
inventory (Exhibit 2.15) cover a broad base of data that were objectively chosen by subject matter
expert incumbents and supervisors using a critical incident technique. It is reasonable to assert that the
KSAOs chosen are generally accepted KSAs. Content validation studies “have wide applicability in the
selection individuals for jobs requiring generally accepted KSAs” (Gatewood, 151). We would also
choose this method because these studies focus on job content and the linkage of job tasks to important
KSAs. Additionally, the results of these studies can help increase the perception of fairness among
applicants. Content and criterion-related validation studies differ because content studies focus on
broad, more judgmental descriptors and they focus on the selection measure itself. Criterion studies
focus on an external variable, they are based on a specific set of defined data, and they are nested with
precise quantitative indicators. They are also sometimes referred to as the present employee studies
because the information is collected for a current group of workers (Gatewood, 159).
4. Evaluate the job analysis procedures used in this case. Is it necessary to do such a thorough analysis?
Yes, it is recommended that a thorough analysis is completed. Job analysis phase is a critical step in
determining if there was adverse impact. Job analysis will determine if the testing and interviewing
process is relevant and is related to the job, which will prevent discrimination. The critical-incident
technique used by Ron is important to determine what the critical roles are and what would be
considered successful and unsuccessful. This will be used to better analyze potential candidates to
select the best candidate based on the findings. The findings during a thorough job analysis will be used
in court if an adverse impact lawsuit would arise. This phase will help determine the KSAO’s the job
entails and will help structure the interview phase, testing phase and training. You can look at it as the
foundation for the steps following. This can be used to identify, test, and measure the effectiveness of
training. This can also be used in compensation and determine compensable job factors. The job
HMRS 5435.01
Spring 2013, Group 4
Members: C. Duchesne, K. Gardner, C. Horne, Q. Le, T. Sweet, A. Szymczak
analysis will also help structure the interview process so all potential candidates are treated fairly and
interviewed the same, to prevent any form of potential adverse impact.
5. If you are doing a criterion-related validity study, should your criterion be success in training or onthe-job performance?
In this case, the criterion-related validation study should be on the job performance vs. success in
training. Criterion-related validation is narrowly based on a specific set of data… and to utilize it
properly, there must be a large sample size (Gatewood, 155). In this case there are over 300 employees
therefore the sample size is large enough to use a criterion-related validation. Ron knew he had to keep
the interviews somewhat the same since other subordinates also wanted that and he knew that he had
to come up with a way to prohibit discrimination in the interview process.
In the case it states that although there was a task inventory the major tasks or job duties had not been
rated for importance, difficulty, frequency or trainability and since this is a federal government agency,
training is essential to their success and handling situations outside of everyday norms. Conducting a
job analysis is the first thing Ron should do in a criterion-related validation study with on the job
training. In the case it states that there were no written rules that specified how to best do the job,
therefore Ron asked a sample of agents to develop three critical incidents and to indicate the task
associated with each incident. He then asked them to rate a level of importance and behaviors that
were associated with these incidents and report the amount of training that was required for each. By
doing this, it attempts to outline the actual tasks that are required and actually performed on the job.
After creating this job analysis, Ron proposed a reading comprehensive exam that would include
incidents and laws pertaining to each incident that he would have applicants fill out.
For this federal government agency using the on the job performance for the criterion-related validity
would be best because it most accurately describes real life situations. Many times training is way
different than the actual job or certain situation ends up being. It is important to have the knowledge
and skills that are required of a person when they are being placed in real life situations versus training
facilities with structured agendas.