Premium
VALIDITY AND FAIRNESS OF SOME ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES 1
Author(s) -
REILLY RICHARD R.,
CHAO GEORGIA T.
Publication year - 1982
Publication title -
personnel psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.076
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1744-6570
pISSN - 0031-5826
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1982.tb02184.x
Subject(s) - psychology , personnel selection , selection (genetic algorithm) , assessment center , criterion validity , test validity , social psychology , applied psychology , incremental validity , actuarial science , psychometrics , construct validity , statistics , clinical psychology , computer science , economics , mathematics , artificial intelligence
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.