This paper will attempt to answer the following three questions from Nkomo Case 38, "A Solution for Adverse Impact" (Nkomo, Fottler, & McAfee, 2011, p. 118-121). 1. Is there any evidence of adverse impact against any race, sex, or ethnic groups? 2. If the total selection process for job has no advance impact, should the individual components of the selection process be evaluated for adverse impact? 3. Which type of validation would you use? Why? What are the differences between content and criterion-rated validity studies?
Nkomo Case 38, "A Solution for Adverse Impact" is a case study regarding a Federal Government agency that is trying to determine if there is discrimination, and how to avoid, it. The agency had collected the data to avoid …show more content…
They decide to use the 4/5th rule (aka 80/20 rule) to evaluate the information that had been collected in the recruitment process of entry level employees. The 4/5 rule is a statically way of determining if discrimination is happening. “If the selection rate for a protected group is less than 80% (4/5ths) of the selection rate for the majority group or less than 80% of the majority group’s representation in the relevant labor market, discrimination exists” (Mathis, Jackson, & Valentine, 2015, p.238). The 80/20 rule can be used for several things in the business world. However, we will look at the calculations for this …show more content…
The calculation with results is 27.8/47.5=0.58526=58.5%. Since, 58.5% is less than 80% and therefore there is evidence of adverse impact.
The second calculation is the Hispanics percent of 43.1 divided by the Caucasian percent of 47.5. The calculation is 43.1/47.5=0.90736=90.7%. Since 90.7 is greater than 80 percent there is not evidence of adverse impact.
The third calculation is the Women’s percent of 54.1% divided by the Men’s percent of 44.2. The calculation is 54.1/44.2=1.16289=116.3%. Since 116.3 is greater than 80 percent there is not evidence of adverse impact.
The Uniform Guidelines required employers to assess for adverse impact at least once a year, even if the job has no evidence of advance impact. Each individual components of the selection process should be evaluated for adverse impact to ensure the job is still compliant. Things and employees change and the reports are completed each year. Therefore, the adverse impact should be assessed each
Nkomo Case 38, "A Solution for Adverse Impact" is a case study regarding a Federal Government agency that is trying to determine if there is discrimination, and how to avoid, it. The agency had collected the data to avoid …show more content…
They decide to use the 4/5th rule (aka 80/20 rule) to evaluate the information that had been collected in the recruitment process of entry level employees. The 4/5 rule is a statically way of determining if discrimination is happening. “If the selection rate for a protected group is less than 80% (4/5ths) of the selection rate for the majority group or less than 80% of the majority group’s representation in the relevant labor market, discrimination exists” (Mathis, Jackson, & Valentine, 2015, p.238). The 80/20 rule can be used for several things in the business world. However, we will look at the calculations for this …show more content…
The calculation with results is 27.8/47.5=0.58526=58.5%. Since, 58.5% is less than 80% and therefore there is evidence of adverse impact.
The second calculation is the Hispanics percent of 43.1 divided by the Caucasian percent of 47.5. The calculation is 43.1/47.5=0.90736=90.7%. Since 90.7 is greater than 80 percent there is not evidence of adverse impact.
The third calculation is the Women’s percent of 54.1% divided by the Men’s percent of 44.2. The calculation is 54.1/44.2=1.16289=116.3%. Since 116.3 is greater than 80 percent there is not evidence of adverse impact.
The Uniform Guidelines required employers to assess for adverse impact at least once a year, even if the job has no evidence of advance impact. Each individual components of the selection process should be evaluated for adverse impact to ensure the job is still compliant. Things and employees change and the reports are completed each year. Therefore, the adverse impact should be assessed each