I-O Chapter 6

Front 1

staffing decisions

Back 1

associated with recruiting, selecting, promoting, and separating employees

Front 2

high performance work practices

Back 2

include the use of formal job analyzes, selection from within for key positions, merit-based promotions, and the use fo formal assessment devices for selection

Front 3

power distance

Back 3

the degree to which less powerful members of an

Front 4

uncertainty avoidance

Back 4

the extent to which members of a culture feel comfortable in unstructured situations

Front 5

multinational staffing

Back 5

procedures that involve staffing for organizations in more than one country

Front 6

validity

Back 6

the accurateness of inferences made based on test or performance data; also addresses whether a measure accurately and completly represents what was intended to be measured

Front 7

criterion-related validity

Back 7

validity appraoch that is demonstrated by correlating a test core with a performance measure; improves researcher's confidence in the inference that people with higher test scores have higher performance.

Front 8

selection ration (SR)

Back 8

index ranging from 0 to 1 that refects the ratio of positions to applicants; calculated by dividing the number of positions available by the number of applicants

Front 9

False positive

Back 9

Decision in which an applicant was accepted but performed poorly; decision is false because of the incorrect prediction that the applicant would have performed successfully and positive because the applicant was hired

Front 10

false negative

Back 10

decision in which an applicant was rejected but would have performed adequately or successfully; decision is false because of the incorrect prediction that the applicant would not have performed successfully and negative because the applicant was not hired.

Front 11

true positive

Back 11

decision in which an applicant was accepted and performed successfully; decision is true because of the correct prediction that the applicant would be a good performer and positive because the applicant was hired.

Front 12

true negative

Back 12

decision in which an applicant was rejected and would have performed poorly if he or she were hired; decision is true because of the correct prediction that the applicant would not be a good performer and negative because the appliant was not hired

Front 13

cut score

Back 13

specified point in a distribution of scores below which candidates are rejected; also known as "cutoff score"

Front 14

Criterion-referenced cut score

Back 14

establishing by considering the desired level of performance for a new hire and finding the test score that corresponds to the desired level of performance; sometimes called "domain-referenced" cut score

Front 15

Norm-referenced cut score

Back 15

based on some index of the test-takers' scores rather than any notion of job performance

Front 16

Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures

Back 16

Official government guidelines designed to assist employers, labor organizations, employement agencies, and licensing and certification boards to comply with federal requirements

Front 17

Base rate

Back 17

percentage of the current workforce that is performing successfully

Front 18

Utility Analysis

Back 18

technique that assesses the economic return on investment of human resource interventions such as staffing or training.

Front 19

Comprehensive Staffing Model

Back 19

Model that gathers enough high quality information about candidates to predict the likelihood of their success on the varied demands of the job.

Front 20

Clinical Decision Making

Back 20

Uses judgment to combine information and to make a decision about the relative value of different candidates or applicants

Front 21

Statistical decision making

Back 21

combining information according to a mathematical formula

Front 22

Compensatory system

Back 22

noncompensatory strategy in which an individual has no opportunity to compensate at a later assessment stage for a low score in an earlier stage of the assessment process

Front 23

Multiple Hurdle System

Back 23

Constructed from multiple hurdles so that candidates who do not exceed each of the minimum dimension scores are excluded from further consideration

Front 24

Multiple regression analysis

Back 24

results in an equation for combining test scores into a composite based on the correlations among the test scores and the correlations of each test score with the performance score.

Front 25

cross-validation

Back 25

process used with multiple regression techniques in which a regression equation developed on a first sample is tested on a second sample to determine if it still fits well; usually carried out with an incumbent sample, and the cross-validated results are used to weight the predictor scores of an applicant sample.

Front 26

score banding

Back 26

approach in which individuals with similar test scores are grouped together in a category or score band, and selection within the band is then made based on other considerations.

Front 27

Standard error of measurement (SEM)

Back 27

Statistic that provides a measure of the amount of error in a test score distribution; function of the reliability of the variability in test scores

Front 28

Fixed band system

Back 28

candidates in lower bands are not considered until higher bands have been completely exhausted

Front 29

sliding band system

Back 29

permits the band to be moved down a score point (or to slide) when the highest score in a band is exhausted

Front 30

subgroup norming

Back 30

approach that develops separate lists for individuals within different demographic groups, then ranks the candidates within their respective demographic groups.

Front 31

Termination for cause

Back 31

An individual is fired from an organization for a particular reason; the individual has usually been warned one or more times about a problem, and either cannot or will not correct it.

Front 32

Layoff

Back 32

job loss due to employer downsizing or reduction in force; often comes without warning or with a generic warning that the workforce will be reduced

Front 33

Expert witness

Back 33

witness in a lawsuit who is permitted to voice opinions about organizational practices.

Front 34

Adverse (or disparate) treatment

Back 34

type of discrimination in which the plaintiff attempts to show that the employer actually treated the plaintiff differnly than majority applicants or employees; intentional discrimination

Front 35

Adverse Impact

Back 35

type of discrimination that acknowledges the employer may not have intended to discriminate against a plaintiff, but an employer practice did have an adverse impact on the group to which the plaintiff belongs

Front 36

"80 percent" or "4/5ths Rule"

Back 36

Guideline for assessing whether there is evidence of adverse impact; if it can be shown that a protected group received less than 80 percent of the desirable outcomes (e.g., job offers, promotions) recieved by a majority group, the plaintiffs can claim to have met the burden of demonstrating adverse impact.

Front 37

Adverse impact ratio

Back 37

obtained by dividing the selection ratio of the protected group by the selection ratio of the majority group; if this ratio is less than 80 percent, there is evidence of adverse impact.

Front 38

deposition

Back 38

interview under oath taken by an opposing attorney in a lawsuit

Front 39

discovery

Back 39

process in which lawyers are given access to potential witnesses who will be called by the other side, as well as any documents relevant to the complaints.

Front 40

class certification

Back 40

Judge's decision based on several critical criteria that determine whether individual plaintiffs can file together under a class action lawsuit.