Legal Context of Assessment
Legal Context of Assessment
Any assessment procedure used to make an employment decision (e.g., selection,
promotion, pay increase) can be open to claims of adverse
impact based on subgroup differences. Adverse impact is a legal
concept used to determine whether there is a "substantially different" passing
rate (or selection rate) between two groups on an assessment procedure (see www.uniformguidelines.com
for a more detailed discussion). Groups are typically defined on the basis of
race (e.g., Blacks compared to Whites), gender (i.e., males compared to females),
or ethnicity (e.g., Hispanics compared to Non-Hispanics). Assessment
procedures having an adverse impact on any group must be shown to be
job-related (i.e., valid).
What is a "substantially different"
passing rate? The Uniform Guidelines provide a variety of statistical
approaches for evaluating adverse impact. The most widely used method is
referred to as the 80% (or four-fifths) rule-of-thumb. The following is an
example where the passing rate for females is 40% and the passing rate for males
is 50%. The Uniform Guidelines lay out the following steps for computing
adverse impact:
- Divide the group with the lowest rate (females at 40%) by the
group with the highest rate (males at 50%)
- In this case, divide 40% by 50% (which equals 80%)
- Note whether the result is 80% or higher
According to the 80% rule, adverse impact is not indicated
as long as the ratio is 80% or higher. In this case, the ratio of the two
passing rates is 80%, so evidence of adverse impact is not found and the
passing rate of females is not considered substantially different from males.
Agencies are encouraged to consider assessment strategies
to minimize adverse impact. When adverse impact is discovered, the
assessment procedure must be shown to be job-related and valid for its intended
purpose.