PS451 Unit 2 Testing Law and Ethics Paper Example

Two of Nine Women Passed the Climb Test: A PS451 Unit 2 Testing Law and Ethics Paper

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS451: Selection and Assessment in Organizations

Unit 2 Testing Law and Ethics Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer, the tree care company, the applicants and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.

The Old Test

For six years, every applicant for a climbing arborist job at our Chattanooga company took the same physical test. They lifted a hundred-pound section of log from the ground to waist height three times, then climbed forty feet up a practice pole on a rope while carrying a thirty-five-pound chainsaw, against a two-minute clock. Applicants who passed went to an interview with a foreman. Nobody remembered who had designed the test or why those weights and times were chosen.

When I pulled the last three years of records, the pattern was stark. Of fifty-eight men who took the test, forty-one passed, a rate of about 71 percent. Of nine women, two passed, about 22 percent. The women's pass rate was about 31 percent of the men's.

Adverse Impact on Our Climb Test

Federal guidance flags a hiring step for adverse impact when some group clears it at a markedly lower rate than whichever group clears it most often. The common rule of thumb treats a rate below four-fifths, or 80 percent, of the highest group's rate as a signal to look closer. Ours was well under half that. With only nine women, the numbers are small, but the gap is large enough that small samples cannot explain it away, and it was consistent across all three years.

Adverse impact alone does not make a test unlawful. What it does is hand the employer a duty of proof: we would have to demonstrate that the climb and lift measured something the work demands and that the business truly needed it, and a different tool that predicted just as well while excluding fewer women would weaken even a solid case. We could not show either. There was no record linking the log lift or the two-minute clock to what climbers actually do.

What Professional Standards Require

The field's own rulebook for validating and using hiring tools is the fifth edition of the Principles (Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2018). A test must be supported by evidence that its scores mean what the employer claims, built on an analysis of the work. Evidence can come from showing that a test samples important job content, from showing that scores predict performance, or from both. Cutoff scores should be set with reference to the job's requirements, and the procedure should be reviewed when the job changes.

Our climber job analysis from the previous unit gave us the comparison we needed. Climbers rarely lift a full log section from the ground; rigging and ropes do that, and ground workers handle the wood. Climbers do ascend trees with gear, but with modern rope systems that use mechanical advantage, and they move along limbs, reposition and make controlled cuts while tied in. Speed matters far less than control. The old test sampled raw strength and pace, while the job analysis pointed to technique, endurance and movement control.

The test was not measuring the job our climbers do now; it was measuring the job the foremen remembered.

Why Women Failed More Often

Courtright et al. (2013) brought together studies of sex differences on physical ability tests. Men scored substantially higher on tests of muscular strength and of cardiovascular endurance, but there were no meaningful differences on tests of movement quality, such as balance, flexibility and coordination. Practice before testing shrank the gaps, and so did choices about which events a test includes and how its scores are combined.

Our old test weighted the two abilities with the largest sex differences, lifting and timed climbing, and gave no weight to the movement quality that climbers described as central. It was predictable that it would screen out women at a far higher rate.

Hough et al. (2001) reviewed the causes of adverse impact across many kinds of predictors and concluded that the size of group differences depends heavily on the construct measured, how narrowly it is defined and the measurement method. They emphasized that employers need to specify the requirements of the work accurately, because once that is done, the right predictors may show more or less impact than the ones in use. That was our situation exactly.

The Redesigned Assessment

Working with four senior climbers and two foremen, I rebuilt the test around tasks from the job analysis. Applicants now complete four stations on a training tree: ascending forty feet using the company's rope system, moving out along a limb and repositioning their lanyard, making three controlled cuts on a practice limb with a handsaw, and completing a timed aerial rescue drill with a weighted mannequin, the one place where strength and speed truly matter on the job. Two trained raters score each station against written standards. The log lift is gone; ground workers, who handle wood, have their own test.

We also added a two-week preparation program. Any applicant who passes the interview can attend two free evening sessions at our yard to practice on the training tree with a climber before testing. Courtright and colleagues' finding that training can narrow differences supports this, and it gives every applicant the same chance to learn the equipment.

First Results

In the first eight months, fifty-five men and eight women took the new assessment. Forty-four men passed, 80 percent, and five women passed, about 63 percent. The impact ratio rose to about .78, still slightly below four-fifths. With so few women, one more pass would put it above the line, so I am not treating .78 as either a failure or a success. The more important questions are whether the new stations predict performance and whether any part of the test is driving the remaining gap.

Validation Plan

We will track every climber hired through the new assessment for one year, comparing station scores with foremen's safety and quality ratings, near-miss reports and ninety-day retention. I will look station by station at pass rates by sex. If the rescue drill accounts for most of the remaining gap, we will examine whether its weight and time limit reflect actual rescue requirements, which industry training standards describe in detail.

Ethical Questions Beyond the Law

Legal defensibility is a floor. The ethical issue is that our old test screened out applicants who might have been safe, skilled climbers, and it also screened in applicants whose strength masked poor technique. One of last year's injured climbers had passed the old test easily. A test that excludes capable people and admits risky ones fails everyone, including the crew members who depend on the climber above them.

Conclusion

The old climb test showed severe adverse impact and had no validation evidence. The SIOP Principles define what evidence a test needs, Hough and colleagues show how adverse impact depends on what is measured, and Courtright and colleagues explain why a strength-heavy test excludes women who may move as well as anyone. A test rebuilt from the job analysis, with preparation offered to all applicants and a plan to validate each station, is fairer and better tied to the work.

References

Courtright, S. H., McCormick, B. W., Postlethwaite, B. E., Reeves, C. J., & Mount, M. K. (2013). A meta-analysis of sex differences in physical ability: Revised estimates and strategies for reducing differences in selection contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 623-641. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033144

Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1-2), 152-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00171

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2018). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (5th ed.). Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(S1), 1-97. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.195