Some comments on pareto thinking, test validity, and adverse impact: When 'and' is optimal and 'or' is a trade-off

Denise Potosky, Philip Bobko, Philip L. Roth

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations

Abstract

De Corte, Lievens, and Sackett add to the literature on selection test validity and adverse impact (AI). Their Pareto-based weighting scheme essentially asks organizations if they are willing to give up some validity to hopefully achieve some reduction in AI. We considered their approach and conclusions in relation to the regression weighting method we used, and we offer five points that reflect our observations as well as our shared goals. We hope our comments, like their work in this field, will invigorate the pursuit of new ways of examining, and one day resolving, the persistent concern regarding the AI associated with valid selection tests.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)201-205
Number of pages5
JournalInternational Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume16
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2008

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Business, Management and Accounting(all)
  • Applied Psychology
  • Psychology(all)
  • Strategy and Management
  • Management of Technology and Innovation

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Some comments on pareto thinking, test validity, and adverse impact: When 'and' is optimal and 'or' is a trade-off'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this