Should Employers Rely on Local Validation Studies or Validity Generalization (VG) to Support the Use of Employment Tests in Title VII Situations?

Abstract

Since the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Griggs v. Duke Power (1971), employers have been subject to challenge by plaintiffs or government enforcement agencies when they use employment tests that have adverse impact. In such situations the 1991 Civil Rights Act requires employers to demonstrate that the test is “…job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” Employers typically rally such a defense by addressing the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures—the federal treatise framed in 1978 for the express purpose of Title VII enforcement—along with relevant professional standards (Joint Standards, 1999; SIOP Principles, 2003). To address such requirements, employers are faced with several viable validation alternatives, ranging from conducting a local criterion-related validation study to relying on validity evidence from other studies for similar positions, employers, and tests (i.e., Validity Generalization). The strengths and limitations of both of these strategies in a Title VII context are reviewed, and employers are ultimately encouraged to select the local validation strategy whenever technically feasible for a variety of reasons discussed.