The article describes a Windows program to estimate the expected value and sampling distribution function of the adverse impact ratio for general multistage selections. The results of the program can also be used to predict the risk that a future selection decision will result in an outcome that reflects the presence of adverse impact. The method therefore provides the selection practitioner with a valuable tool to screen intended selection scenarios in terms of their potential to address the adverse impact problem.
Bobko, P., Roth, P. L.,& Potosky, D. (1999). Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 52, 561-589.
2.
De Corte, W., & Lievens, F. (2003). Assessing the risk of adverse impact in personnel selection decisions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
3.
Fong, K. W., Jefferson, T. H., Suyehiro, T.,& Walton, L. (1993). Guide to the SLATEC common mathematical library. Available from http://www.netlib.org/slatec/
4.
L’Ecuyer, P.,& Côté, S. (1991). Implementing a random number package with splitting facilities. Transactions on Mathematical Software, 17, 98-111.
5.
Lynn, R. (1996). Racial and ethnic differences in the U.S. on the Differential Ability Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 271-273.
6.
Morris, S. B. (2001). Sample size requirements for adverse impact analysis. Applied HRM Research, 6, 13-32.
7.
Sackett, P. R.,& Roth, L. (1996). Multistage selection strategies: AMonte Carlo investigation of effects on performance and minority hiring. Personnel Psychology, 49, 549-572.
8.
Sackett, P. R., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J. E., & Kabin, M. B. (2001). High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing and higher education. American Psychologist, 56, 302-318.
9.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, and Department of Justice. (1978). Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register, 43, 38290-38315.
