I/o Psych Test 2 - Chapter 6

Front 1

selection vs. placement

Back 1

selection: choosing one person among to fill a certain opening
placement: matching multiple applicants to multiple job openings

Front 2

multiple regression analysis

Back 2

develops an equation for combining test scores into a composite based on the individual correlations of each test score dimension with the performance score and the intercorrelations between the test scores; uses compensatory model where scoring high in one part can make up for scoring low on another

drawback: a person can score very low on test and very high on another so scores could be identical between two people although their abilities are completely different

Front 3

multiple cutoff strategy

Back 3

minimum cutoff scores for each predictor
should be based on job analysis

Front 4

multiple hurdles

Back 4

order the selection tests as successive hurdles applicant must pass to get job offer; useful when the base rate is low -- many jobs for few positions

Front 5

criterion-referenced cut scores

Back 5

established by considering the desired level of performance for a new hire, and finding the test score that corresponds to it

Front 6

norm-referenced cut-scores

Back 6

not tied to any expected performance level; based on the average test taker's score instead;

** uniform guidelines on employee selection: cut scores should be set compatible with expected performance level to avoid charges of unfairness

Front 7

utility analysis

Back 7

addresses the cost/benefit ratio of one strategy vs. another; asses the economic return investment based on caliber of workers they get

Front 8

individual prediction - prediction accuracy

Back 8

higher the validity the better

?

Front 9

decision accuracy

Back 9

for identifying a smaller group of persons within a larger group

willing to accept some error if on the whole the percentage is higher with the tests than without them

Front 10

compensatory system

Back 10

model in which a good score on a test can compensate for a lower score in another area

Front 11

layoff situations

Back 11

staffing strategy must be clear
better with statistical decisions - more difficult to argue bias
criteria: years in company, number of skills possessed, past two years of performance ratings, forseeable pieces of work for the person over the next 18 months

Front 12

hit rate

Back 12

??

Front 13

selection ratio

Back 13

ratio b/t number of people assessed and umber actually hired; the closer to 1, the greater the amt. that were hired based on the total

Front 14

base rate

Back 14

percentage of current workforce that is performing successfully

Front 15

discrimination

Back 15

limited to members of groups officially protected by anti-discrimination laws (ex: equal pay, title VII, age discrimination, americans w/ disabilities)

Front 16

purpose of title VII

Back 16

prohibits employment decisions based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin

Front 17

americans with disabilities act

Back 17

prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities -- physical or mental impairment that greatly limits one's major life activities, and has a record of impairment or is regarded as having one

Front 18

title I

Back 18

aka americans with disabilities act

Front 19

undue hardship

Back 19

actions that require significant difficult or expense in light of

Front 20

EEOC

Back 20

equal opportunity employment commission -- responsible for enforcing most EEO laws (title VII, equal pay, americans with disabilities, etc.); investigates complaints about discrimination, gathers info., and issues guidelines; established by title VII and civil rights act

Front 21

forms of discrimination under title VII

Back 21

disparate/adverse treatment
adverse impact
evil intent

Front 22

disparate/adverse treatment

Back 22

type of discrimination in which the plaintiff attempts to show that employer intentionally treated the plaintiff differently than the majority of applicants or workers

Front 23

adverse impact

Back 23

the employer may not have intended to discriminate against the plaintiff, but an employer practice did have negative impact

Front 24

evil intent

Back 24

a more severe form of adverse treatment -- not in book!!

Front 25

4/5 (80% rule)

Back 25

guideline for deciding whether or not there is adverse impact; if it can be shown that the group received less than 80% of desirable outcome than the majority group, adverse impact can be proven and there may be damages

Front 26

group protected by ADEA

Back 26

anyone 40+

Front 27

categories of sexual harassment

Back 27

quid pro quo
hostile working environment

Front 28

sexual harassment

Back 28

unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature is considered harassment when submission or rejection of this conduct affects work performance or creates a hostile working environment

Front 29

quid pro quo sexual harassment

Back 29

involves direct requests for sexual favors (ex: sexual compliance is mandatory for maintaining job or getting promotion)

Front 30

hostile working environment

Back 30

occurs when conduct, which is perceived to be offensive, interferes with job performance