Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-hbs24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T04:47:39.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lost in Translation: Disparate Impact Reduction Strategies and Legal Stakeholders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Erica N. Drew  and
Chockalingam Viswesvaran
Erica N. Drew*
Affiliation:
Florida International University
Chockalingam Viswesvaran
Affiliation:
Florida International University
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Psychology, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL 33199
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 463 - 466
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Bar Association (2012). Lawyer demographics. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/Google Scholar
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 143–159.Google Scholar
Gutman, A. (2012). Legal constraints on personnel selection decisions. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 686–720). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsey, A., King, E., Dunleavy, E., McCausland, T., & Jones, K. (2013). What we know and don't: Eradicating employment discrimination 50 years after the Civil Rights Act. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(4), 391–413.Google Scholar
Ployhart, R. E., & Holtz, B. C. (2008). The diversity–validity dilemma: Strategies for reducing racioethnic and sex subgroup differences and adverse impact in selection. Personnel Psychology, 61, 153–172. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00109.xGoogle Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1996). An evaluation of two strategies for reducing adverse impact and their effects on criterion-related validity. Human Performance, 9, 241–258.Google Scholar
Pyburn, K. M. Jr., Ployhart, R. E., & Kravitz, D. A. (2008). The diversity–validity dilemma: Overview and legal context. Personnel Psychology, 61, 143–151.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. M., & Tippins, N. T. (2004). Attracting and selecting: What psychological research tells us. Human Resource Management, 43, 305–318. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wingate, P. H., & Thorton, G. C. III (2004). Industrial/organizational psychology and the federal judiciary: Expert witness testimony and the Daubert standards. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 97–114.Google Scholar