UNIFORM GUIDELINES ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 83
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 11, 2001
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: January 1, 1979
• Content Type: REGULATION

Approved For 11Vl111 OM .l 111 MOV
Employee Selection
Procedures
With an Analysis by
Mary Green Miner and
John B. Miner,
Questions and Answers on
the Guidelines Prepared by
a Joint Government Committee,
and a Bibliography
on Testing
L-A
RNA
Approved For Releasc2 -'1 ill/A7ioOAg ,@ 14URQAOAQO* PM
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
Analysis of Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures ......
1
Text of Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures .............
Questions and Answers on the Uniform Guidelines on Employee
6
Selection Procedures ................................................................................ 48
Bibliography on Testing ............................................................................... 76
Additional copies of this pamphlet may be obtained from
BNA Books for $2.50 per copy. Quantity discounts are
allowed as follows:
1- 4 copies:
5 - 9 copies:
10-24 copies:
25-49 copies:
50-99 copies:
100 copies or more:
Order from: BNA Books
1231 -25th St., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20037
$2.50 per copy
less 10%
less 15%
less 20%
less 25%
less 30%
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
Analysis of Uniform Guidelines
on Employee Selection Procedures
BY MARY GREEN MINER AND JOHN B. MINER
Guidelines to be used in determining whether employee selection
procedures are unlawful finally were agreed to by four federal gov-
ernment agencies and published in the August 25, 1978, Federal Reg-
ister. The "Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures
(1978)," adopted by the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the Depart-
ment of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
and the Department of Labor, became effective as of September 25,
1978.
This final set of guidelines culminates nearly six years of efforts by
the federal agencies charged with enforcement of EEO laws and reg-
ulations to establish a uniform position regarding selection pro-
cedures. Two different sets of selection guidelines that had been in
effect-the one used by the EEOC and the one used by the three
other enforcement agencies-are superseded by the new set. (For a
discussion of events leading to the issuance of uniform selection
guidelines, see Employee Selection Within the Law by Miner and
Miner, BNA Books, 1978, Chapter 3.)
For an employer to be sure that selection procedures do not violate
EEO laws, the guidelines require the following steps:
1. The overall selection process should be evaluated for evidence
of "adverse impact" on the employment of any group protected
under the law. Adverse impact is defined on the basis of what is
known as the "four fifths rule of thumb." (See text of Guide-
lines below, Section 4D, and Miner,& Miner, p. 69.)
2. Where there is evidence of adverse impact, the individual com-
ponents of the selection process should be investigated to find
out what specific step or technique is contributing to the adverse
impact. (The guidelines apply to any procedure used in making
employment decisions, not only to scored tests; see definition
Section 16Q.)
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 :ICIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
ANALYSIS OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES
:3. Any procedure resulting in an adverse impact must either be
abandoned, changed in application to eliminate the adverse im-
pact, or proved to be job-related and thus in compliance with
the requirement of business necessity. Proof of job-relatedness
must be in the form of acceptable evidence of validity.
4. Validity studies should include an investigation and evaluation
of "suitable alternative" selection Wchniques that are "substan-
tially equally valid" and with less adverse impact. When equally
valid procedures are available, the one with the least adverse
impact should be adopted.
The majority of the text of the guidelines is devoted to outlining
what is acceptable evidence of validity, Which may be based on any
-f the three professionally accepted types of validation-criterion-
-elated validation studies, content validity, or construct validity.
Where criterion-related validation stladies are conducted, they
hould include an investigation of the fairness of a selection pro-
edure if technically feasible--that is, if there are large enough sam-
;rles of women or members of a particular minority group to conduct
:uch a study.
issues in Controversy
The final selection guidelines as ag>eed to by the enforcement
:tgencies contain at least two provisions that have been the subject of
,ontroversy and that can be anticipated to be questioned in. the
!ourts.
The "hottom-line"concept. A major;area of disagreement among
the enforcement agencies has been whetlper each procedure in a selec-
tion process need be evaluated for adverse impact if the overall
results of the process-the bottom lti.ne-show no evidence of
adverse impact. The original version ofthe uniform guidelines pub-
lished in December 1977 indicated that, generally, if the overall re-
ults showed no adverse impact, individual steps of the selection
process would not be subject to scrutiny. Employers were very crit-
ical of the use of the word "generally," which was viewed as giving
the enforcement agencies the right to challenge any component of
the selection process, no matter what the overall result might be.
Noting that there are court decisions supporting both sides of this
issue, the federal agencies make their position-that individual selec-
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
ANALYSIS OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES 3
tion procedures can be questioned even though the bottom line is in
compliance-even more emphatic in the final guidelines. Examples
are provided of two types of situations where individual procedures
are likely to be challenged: (1) Where the procedure is a significant
factor in perpetuating the effects of prior discrimination, or (2)
where there have been court or administrative rulings in similar situ-
ations finding such a procedure not to be job-related and thus un-
lawful. It is noted in addition that the enforcement agencies have
discretion to ignore the bottom line and take action with respect to
an individual selection procedure in "unusual circumstances." (See
Section 4C.)
Suitable alternative procedures. The requirement that employers
using a validated selection procedure with an adverse impact search
for alternative procedures with less adverse impact has been severely
criticized by employer groups and the industrial psychology profes-
sion. While endorsing the idea of looking .for better selection pro-
cedures on a continuing basis, employers do not feel they should
have the burden of proving there is no suitable alternative pro-
cedure with less adverse impact. However, the guidelines indicate
that employers should make a "reasonable effort to become aware"
of alternative procedures and that validity studies should include an
investigation and evaluation of suitable alternative selection pro-
cedures (Section 3B).
Changes in the Original Version
The final version of the guidelines as published in August 1978
differs in some respects from the original version published in De-
cember 1977 for public review and comment. Two of the changes
made in the final version relate to the issues discussed above-the
bottom-line concept (Section 4C) and suitable alternative selection
procedures (Sections 3B, 5G, and 6A).
Based on comments from industrial psychologists, several changes
were made in the provisions on technical standards. Among these are
the following:
? The appropriate use of selection procedures based on content
validity is more narrowly defined, and such procedures should
be restricted to jobs where the content of the selection procedure
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
4 ANALYSIS OF UNIFORM! GUIDELINES
consists of work behavior that is necessary for the performance
of the job or that constitutes most of the important aspects of
the job (Section 14C).
e In both the original and the final versions, employers are cau-
tioned on the use of construct validity evidence because of the
lack of professional literature providing guidance on its use in
employment situations. However,a the final version permits the
use of a selection procedure based on construct validity to be
based on evidence from a criteilion-related study conducted
elsewhere if it can be shown that the jobs involved have
common work behaviors and the Work situations are compara-
ble (Section 14D).
w The definition of "work behavior" is expanded from "a goal-
directed mental or physical activity applied in performance of a
job" to "an activity performed toi achieve the objectives of the
job. Work behaviors involve obsetvable (physical) components
and unobservable (mental) components. A work behavior con-
sists of the performance of one or more tasks. Knowledges,
skills, and abilities are not behaviors, although they may be ap-
plied in work behaviors.."
Documentation requirements. There are major changes in the doc-
umentation requirements, which are cdvered in a section on record-
keeping (Section 15A) that did not appiear in the original version of
the uniform guidelines. Although thereare simplified recordkeeping
requirements for employers with fewer than 100 employees, other
employers are required to keep records showing determinations of
adverse impact made annually for ea&~protected group constituting
2 percent or more of the labor force in the relevant labor market or 2
percent of the applicable workforce. (Au earlier section of the guide-
lines, Section 4D, contains a warning that enforcement agencies may
"draw inferences of adverse impact" if an employer fails to main-
tain the required records.) Where adverse impact has existed, the em-
ployer must keep records of the effect of each component of the se-
lection process for two years after the adverse impact has been elim-
inated.
The requirements for documentation of validity evidence, which
were in the original version, have a few additions. New sections in-
clude documentation requirements for. "evidence of validity from
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
ANALYSIS OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES 5
cooperative studies" (Section 15F), "selection for higher level jobs"
(Section 15G), and "interim use of selection procedures" (Section
15H). Documentation provisions for all three types of validity
studies now include paragraphs on "alternative procedures investi-
gated" and the information required on "uses and applications" has
been expanded to include additional evidence where cutoff scores or
ranking procedures are used (Sections 15B, C, and D).
In spite of the detailed requirements for evidence of validity of
selection procedures, the overall thrust of the final guidelines is to
encourage employers to comply with the law through affirmative ac-
tion programs aimed at getting the right numbers of minorities and
women hired and promoted. With no evidence of adverse impact in
the selection process, the EEO agencies advise, there is no need to
validate selection procedures to be in compliance with the law.
On the other hand, as long as the enforcement agencies can make
exceptions to the bottom-line results concept and challenge indivi-
dual selection procedures as causing adverse impact, challenged pro-
cedures need to be validated. Furthermore, for effective human-
resource management, any selection procedure should be validated-
or proven to be job-related-whether or not it is required by law.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
Text of Uniform Guidelines
on Employee Selection Procedures
The rluicletines, effective September 25,
19h, are preceeded by introductory mate-
rial which will not appear with thr
(ruidelines themselves in' the Code of
Pc>deral Regulations. Howepwer, the intro-
duc#rrriq material, which 7c as published'
urab. thy; guidelines in the August 2:;
!"'deral Register, has bee?l described a:<
'legislative history."
CHAPTER XIV--EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
PART 1607-UNIFORM GIJIDE-
LINES ON EMPLOYEE SELEC-
TION PROCEDURES (1978)
Title 5-Administrative Personnel
CHAPTER 1-CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION
PART 300-EMPLOYMENT
(GENERAL)
Title 28--Judicial Administration
CHAPTER 1-DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
PART 50-STATEMENTS OF
POLICY
Title 41-Public Contracts and
Property Management
CHAPTER 60-OFFICE OF FEDER-
AL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF
TABOR
PARS' 60-3-UNIFORM GUIDELINES
ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PRO-
CHDURES (1973)
Adoption of Employee Selection
Procedures
AGENCIES: Equal Employment Up-
portdnity Commission, Civil Service Com-
missil>n, Department of Justice and De-
partrpent of Labor.
ACTION: Adoption of uniform guide-
ineson employee selection procedures as
final: rules by four agencies.
SUMMARY: This document sets forth
the y ziform guidelines on employee selec-
tion :procedures adopted by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission,
Civil! Service Commission, Department of
Juste, and the Department of Labor. At
pres$nt two different sets of guidelines
existj. The guidelines are intended to
estalplish a uniform Federal position in
the 4rea of prohibiting discrimination in
employment practices on grounds of race,
colon, religion, sex, or national origin.
Cros* reference documents are published
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 :6CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES 7
at 5 CFR 300.103(c) (Civil Service Com-
mission), 28 CFR 50.14 (Department of
Justice), 29 CFR Part 1607 (Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity Commission), and
41 CFR Part 60-3 (Department of Labor)
elsewhere in this issue.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25,
1978.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Doris Wooten, Associate Director,
Donald J. Schwartz, Staff Psycholo-
gist, Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs, Room C-3324,
Department of Labor, 200 Constitu-
tion Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C.
20210,202-523-9426.
Peter C. Robertson, Director, Office
of Policy Implementation, Equal
Employment pportunity Commis-
sion, 2401 E. Street N.W., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20506,20Z-634-7060.
David L. Rose, Chief, Employment
Section, Civil Rights Division, De-
partment of Justice, 10th Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20530,202-739-3831.
A. Diane Graham, Director, Federal
Equal Employment Opportunity,
Civil Service Commission, 1900 E
Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20415,
202-632-4420.
H. Patrick Swygert, Gneral Counsel,
Civil Service Commission, 1900 E
Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20415,
202-632-4632.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
An Overview of the 1978 Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures
I. BACKGROUND
One problem that confronted the Con-
gress which adopted the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 involved the effect of written
preemployment tests on equal employ-
ment opportunity. The use of these test
'Section 703(h), 42 U.S.C. 2000e(2)(h).
scores frequently denied employment to
minorities in many cases without evi-
dence that the tests were related to
success on the job. Yet employers wished
to continue to use such tests as practical
tools to assist in the selection of qualified
employees. Congress sought to strike a
balance which would proscribe discrimi-
nation, but otherwise permit the use of
tests in the selection of employees. Thus,
in title VII, Congress authorized the use
of "any professionally developed ability
test provided that such test, its adminis-
tration or action upon the results is not
designed intended or used to discriminate
**
At first, some employers contended
that, under this section, they could use
any test which had been developed by a
professional so long as they did not intend
to exclude minorities, even if such exclu-
sion was the consequence of the use of
the test. In 1966, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) adopt-
ed guidelines to advise employers and
other users what the law and good
industrial psychology practice required.2
The Department of Labor adopted the
same approach in 1968 with respect to
tests used by Federal Contractors under
Executive Order 11246 in a more detailed
regulation. The Government's view was
that the employer's intent was irrelevant.
If tests or other practices had an adverse
impact on protected groups, they were
unlawful unless they could be justified.
To justify a test which screened out a
higher proportion of minorities, the em-
ployer would have to show that it fairly
measured or predicted performance on
the job. Otherwise, it would not be
considered to be "professionally devel-
oped."
In succeeding years, the EEOC and the
Department of Labor provided more
extensive guidance which elaborated
2See 35 U.S.L.W. 2137 (1966).
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
8 TEXT OF UNIFORM GumELINES
upon these principles and expanded the
guidelines to emphasize all selection
procedures. In 1971 in Griggs v. Duke
Power Co.,3 the Supreme Court an-
nounced the Drinciple that employer
practices which had an adverse impact on
minorities and were not justified by
business necessity constituted illegal dis-
crimination under title VII. Congress
confirmed this interpretation in the 1972
amendments to title VII. The elaboration
of these principles by courts and agencies
continued into the mid-1970's,4 but differ-
ences between the EEOC and the other
agencies (Justice. Labor, and Civil Ser-
vice Commission) produced two different
sets of guidelines by the end of 1976.
With the advent of the Carter adminis-
tration in 1977, efforts were intensified to
produce a unified government position.
The following document represents the
result: of that effort. This introduction is
intended to assist those not familiar with
these matters to understand the basic
approach of the uniform guidelines. Whi-
le the guidelines are complex and techni-
cal, they are based upon the principles
which have been consistently upheld by
the courts, the Congress, and the agen-
cies.
The following discussion will cite the
sections of the Guidelines which embody
thes(: principles.
It. ADVERSE IMPACT
The fundamental principle underlying
the guidelines is that employer policies or
practices which have an adverse impact
on employment opportunities of any race,
sex, or ethnic group are illegal under title
VII and the Executive order unless
justified by business necessity.' A selec-
tion procedure which has no adverse
impact generally does not violate title
VII or the Executive order.6 This means
that arl employer may usually avoid the
application of the guidelines by use of
proceddres which have no adverse im-
pact.7 IP' adverse impact exists, it must be
justifieki on grounds of business necessity.
Normally, this means by validation which
demon0trates the relation between the
selection procedure and performance on
the job(
The >tuidelines adopt a "rule of thumb"
as a practical means of determining
adversd impact for use in enforcement
proceedings. This rule is known as the
"4/5ths''; or "80 percent" rule.8 It is not a
legal dt finition of discrimination, rather
it is i practical device to keep the
attention of enforcement agencies on
serious I discripancies in hire or promotion
rates or other employment decisions. To
determine whether a selection pra/edure
violates the "4/,5ths rule", an employer
compaties its hiring rates for different
groups! But this rule of thumb cannot be
appliedl automatically. An employer who
has conducted an extensive recruiting
campaikn may have a larger than normal
pool ofd applicants, and the "4/5ths rule"
might unfairly expose it to enforcement
proceedings.10 On the other hand, an
employer's reputation may have discour-
aged of "chilled" applicants of particular
groups from applying because they be-
lieved Application would be futile. The
application of the "4/,5ths" rule in that
situati n would allow an employer to
evade crutiny because of its own dis-
criminition.l 1
III. I4 ADVERSE IMPACT TO BE
ME4..SURED BY THE OVERALL
PROCESS?
In recent years some employers have
eliminated the overall adverse impact of
340' U.S. 424 (1971).
'Se z, e.7., Albcrnuzrle Paper Co. v. Moody. 422 U.S. 405
(1975)
'Grulgs, note 3, supra; uniform guidelines on employee
selection procedures (1978), section 3A, (hereinafter cited
by section number only).
?Furnc{' v. Waters, 98 S.Ct 2943 (1978).
*Sectioh 6.
S, ctioh 4D.
OSectio)i 16R (definition of selection rate).
'OSecti4n 4D (special recruiting programs).
''Ibid (Liser's actions have discouraged applicants).
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES 9
a selection procedure and employed suffi-
cient numbers of minorities or women to
meet this "4/5th's rule of thumb". How-
ever, they might continue use of a
component which does have an adverse
impact. For example, an employer might
insist on a minimum passing score on a
written test which is not job related and
which has an adverse impact on minori-
ties.12 However, the employer might
compensate for this adverse impact by
hiring a sufficient proportion of minori-
ties who do meet its standards, so that its
overall hiring is on a par with or higher
than the applicant flow. Employers have
argued that as long as their "bottom line"
shows no overall adverse impact, there is
no violation at all, regardless of the
operation of a particular component of
the process.
Employee representatives have argued
that rights under equal employment
opportunity laws are individual, and the
fact that an employer has hired some
minorities does not justify discrimination
against other minorities. Therefore, they
argue that adverse impact is to be
determined by examination of each com-
ponent of the selection procedure, regard-
less of the "bottom line." This question
has not been answered definitively by the
courts. There are decisions pointing in
both directions.
These guidelines do not address the
underlying question of law. They discuss
only the exercise of prosecutorial discre-
tion by the Government agencies them-
selves.13 The agencies have decided that,
generally, their resources to combat dis-
crimination should be used against those
respondents whose practices have re-
stricted or excluded the opportunities of
minorities and women. If an employer is
appropriately including all groups in the
I2Sec, e.g., Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424
(1971).
r~:Section 4C.
Section 4E.
"Section 4C.
"!The processing of individual cases is excluded from
the operation of the bottom line concept by the definition
workforce, it is not sensible to spend
Government time and effort on such a
case, when there are so many employers
whose practices do have adverse effects
which should be challenged. For this
reason, the guidelines provide that, in
considering whether to take enforcement
action, the Government will take into
account the general posture of the em-
ployer concerning equal employment op-
portunity, including its affirmative ac-
tion plan and results achieved under the
plan.14 There are some circumstances
where the government may intervene
even though the "bottom line" has been
satisfied. They include the case where a
component of a selection procedure res-
tricts promotional opportunities of minor-
ities or women who were discriminatorily
assigned to jobs, and where a component,
such as a height requirement, has been
declared unlawful in other situations, 15
What of the individual who is denied
the job because of a particular component
in a procedure which otherwise meets the
"bottom line" standard? The- individual
retains the right to proceed through the
appropriate agencies, and into Federal
court.16
IV. WHERE ADVERSE IMPACT
EXISTS: THE BASIC OPTIONS
Once an employer has established that
there is adverse impact, what steps are
required by the guidelines? As previously
noted, the employer can modify or elimi-
nate the procedure which produces the
adverse impact, thus taking the selection
procedure from the coverage of these
guidelines. If the employer does not do
that, then it must justify the use of the
procedure on grounds of "business neces-
sity."17 This normally means that it must
show a clear relation between perfor-
of "enforcement action," section 161. Under section 4C,
where adverse impact has existed, the employer must
keep records of the effect of each component for 2 years
after the adverse effect has dissipated.
17A few practices may be used without validation even
if they have adverse impact. See, e.g., McDonnell Douglas
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) and section 6B.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
10 TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES
mance on the selection procedure and
performance on the job. In the language
of industrial psychology, the employer
mu,t validate the selection procedure.
This the bulk of the guidelines consist of
the Government's interpretation of stan-
dards for validation.
V. VALIDATION: CONSIDERATION
OF ALTERNATIVES
The concept of validation as used in
per:,onnel psychology involves the estab-
lishment, of the relationship between a
test instrument or other selection proce-
dur=.c and performance on the job. Federal
equal employment opportunity law has
added a requirement to the process of
validation. In conducting a validation
study, the employer should consider avail-
ablce alternatives which will achieve its
legitimate business purpose with lesser
adverse impact.16 The employer cannot
concentrate solely on establishing the
validity of the instrument or procedure
which it has been using in the past.
This same principle of using the a]ter-
nat;ve with lesser adverse impact is
applicable to the manner in which an
employer uses a valid selection Droce-
dure.19 The guidelines assume that there
are at least three ways in which an
employer can use scores on a selection
procedure: (1) To screen out of consider-
ation those who are not likely to be able
to perform the job successfully; (2) to
groilp applicants in accordance with the
likelihood of their successful performance
on the iob, and (3) to rank applicants,
selecting those with the highest scores for
eml loyment.20
The setting of a "cutoff score" to
determine who will be screened out may
have an adverse impact. If so. an employ-
1,,01armerle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975);
Robm.sou. v. Lorillard Corp., 444 F2d 791 (4th Cir. 1971).
"tstated:
"We Would concur with the drafters of the
guideiine4 That it is appropriate in the determina-
tion of a 4election strategy to consider carefully a
variety (if possible procedures and to think
carefully `about the question of adverse impact
with respect to each of those procedures. Ne-
verthelesi, we feel it appropriate to note that a
rigid enfqrcement of these sections, particularly
for small employers, would impose a substantial
and expensive burden on these employers."
Since' a reasonable consideration of
alternatives is consistent with the under-
lying phinciple of minimizing adverse
impact &~onsistent with business needs,
the provision is retained.
Private employer representatives chal-
lenged 4arlier drafts of these guidelines
as beingi inconsistent with the decision of
the Supreme Court in Albemarle Paper
Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405. No such
inconsistency was intended. Accordingly,
the first sentence of section 3B was
revised to paraphrase the opinion in the
Albemarle decision, so as to make it clear
that section 3B is in accord with the
principlOs of the Albemarle decision.
Section 3B was further revised to
clarify the intent of the guidelines that
the obligation to investigate alternative
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES 15
procedures is a part of conducting a
validity study, so that alternative proce-
dures should be evaluated in light of
validity studies meeting professional
standards, and that section 3B does not
impose an obligation to search for alter-
natives if the user is not required to
conduct a validity study.
Just as, under section 3B of the guide-
lines, a user should investigate alterna-
tive selection procedures as a part of
choosing and validating a procedure, so
should the user investigate alternative
uses of the selection device chosen to find
the use most appropriate to his needs.
The validity study should address the
question of what method of use (screen-
ing, grouping, or rank ordering) is appro-
priate for a procedure based on the kind
and strength of the validity evidence
shown, and the degree of adverse impact
of the different uses.
4. Establishment of cutoff scores and
rank ordering. Some commenters from
civil rights groups believed that the
December 30 draft guidelines did not
provide sufficient guidance as to when it
was permissible to use a selection proce-
dure on a ranking basis rather than on a
pass-fail basis. They also objected to
section 5G in terms of setting cutoff
scores. Other comments noted a lack of
clarity as to how the determination of a
cutoff score or the use of a procedure for
ranking candidates relates to adverse
impact.
As we have noted, users are not
required to validate procedures which do
not have an adverse impact. However, if
one way of using a procedure (e.g., for
ranking) results in greater adverse im-
pact than another way (e.g., pass/fail),
the procedure must be validated for that
use. Similarly, cutoff scores which result
in adverse impact should be justified. If
the use of a validated procedure for
ranking results in greater adverse impact
than its use as a screening device, the
evidence of validity and utility must be
sufficient to warrant use of the proce-
dures as a ranking device.
A new section 5G has been added to
clarify these concepts. Section 5H (form-
erly section 5G) addresses the choice of a
cutoff score when a procedure is to be
used for ranking.
5. Scope: Requests for exemptions for
certain classes of users. Some employer
groups and labor organizations (e.g.,
academic institutions, large public em-
ployers, apprenticeship councils) argued
that they should be exempted from all or
some of the provisions of these guidelines
because of their special needs. The intent
of Congress as expressed in Federal equal
employment opportunity law is to apply
the same standards to all users, public
and private.
These guidelines apply the same princi-
ples and standards to all employers. On
the other hand, the nature of the proce-
dures which will actually meet those
principles and standards may be different
for different employers, and the guide-
lines recognize that fact. Accordingly, the
guidelines are applicable to all employers
and other users who are covered by
Federal equal employment opportunity
law.
Organizations of handicapped persons
objected to excluding from the scope of
these guidelines the enforcement of laws
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
handicap, in particular the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, sections 501, 503, and 504.
While this issue has not been addressed in
the guidelines, nothing precludes the
adoption of the principles set forth in
these guidelines for other appropriate
situations.
Licensing and certification boards
raised the question of the applicability of
the guidelines to their licensing and
certification functions. The guidelines
make it clear that licensing and certifica-
tion are covered "to the extent" that
licensing and certification may be cov-
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
16 TEXT OF ITNIFORM GUIbbFLINES
ered by Federal equal employment oppor-
tunity law.
Voluntary certification boards, where
certification is not required by law, are
not users as defined in section 16 with
respect to their certifying functions and
therefore are not subject to these guide-
lines. If an employer relies upon such
certification in making employment deci-
sions, the employer is the user and must
be prepared to justify, under Federal law,
that reliance as it would any other
selection procedure.
6. The "Four-Fifths Rule of Thumb"
(section 4D). Some representatives of
employers and some professionals sug-
gest that the basic test for adverse
impact should be a test of statistical
significance, rather than the four-fifths
rule. Some civil rights groups, on the
other hand, still regard the four-fifths
rule as permitting some unlawful dis-
crimination.
The Federal agencies believe that
neither of these positions is correct. The
great majority of employers do not hire,
promote, or assign enough employees for
most jobs to warrant primary reliance
upon statistical significance. Many deci-
sions in day-to-day life are made on the
basis of information which does not have
the justification of a test of statistical
significance. Courts have found adverse
impact without a showing of statistical
significance. Griggs v. Duke Power Co..
supra; Vulcan Society q f New York v.
CSC of N. Y., 490 F.2d 387, 393 (2d Cir.
1973): Kirkland v. New York St. Dept. of
Corr. Sena., 520 F.2d 420, 425 (2d Cir.
1975).
Accordingly, the undersigned believe
that while the four-fifths rule does not
define discrimination and does not apply
in all cases, it is appropriate as a rule of
thumb in identifying adverse impact.
7. Criterion-related validity (section
I4B). This section of the guidelines found
general support among the commenters
Approved
from the psychological profession and,
except for the provisions concerning test
fairness (sometimes mistakenly equated
with differential prediction or differen-
tial validity), generated relatively little
comm nt.
The provisions of the guidelines con-
cernin
proced
emplo
been
pointe
? criterion-related validity studies
studies of fairness of selections
Tres where technically feasible.
on 14B(8). Some psychologists and
er groups objected that the con-
test fairness or unfairness has
iscredited by professional and
out that the term is commonly
1. We recognize that there is
serious debate on the question of test
fairness;; however, it is accepted profes-
sionalll that fairness should be examined
where feasible. The .k.P.A. standards for
educational and psychological tests, for
example, direct users to explore the
questions of fairness on finding a differ-
ence irl group performances (section E9,
pp. 43-44). Similarly the concept of test
fairness is one which is closely related to
the basic thrust of Federal equal employ-
ment )portunity law; and that concept
was enklorsed by the Supreme Court in
Albe"rle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S.
405.
Accordingly, we have retained in the
guideli es the obligation upon users to
investi ate test fairness where it is
technic lly feasible to do so.
8. C ntent validity. The Division of
Indust al and Organizational Psychology
of A.P A. correctly perceived that the
provisions of the draft guidelines con-
cernin content validity, with their em-
phasis n observable work behaviors or
work p ucts, were "greatly concerned
with inimizing the inferential leap
between test and performance." That
division expressed the view that the draft
guidelines neglected situations where a
knowleJge, skill or ability is necessary to
an outcome but where the work behavior
For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF U NIFORM G UIDELINES 17
cannot be replicated in a test. They
recommended that the section be revised.
We believe that the emphasis on ob-
servable work behaviors or observable
work products is appropriate; and that in
order to show content validity, the gap
between the test and performance on the
job should be a small one. We recognize,
however, that content validity may be
appropriate to support a test which
measures a knowledge, skill, or ability
which is a necessary prerequisite to the
performance of the job, even though the
test might not be close enough to the
work behavior to be considered a work
sample, and the guidelines have been
revised appropriately. On the other hand,
tests of mental processes which are not
directly observable and which may be
difficult to determine on the basis of
observable work behaviors or work pro-
ducts should not be supported by content
validity.
Thus, the Principles for the Validation
and Use of Personnel Selection Proce-
dures (Division of Industrial and Organi-
zational Psychology, American Psycho-
logical Association, 1975, p. 10), discuss
the use of content validity to support
tests of "specific items of knowledge, or
specific job skills," but call attention to
the inappropriateness of attempting to
justify tests for traits or constructs on a
content validity basis.
9. Construct validity (section 14D).
Business groups and professionals ex-
pressed concern that the construct validi-
ty requirements in the December 30 draft
were confusing and technically inaccu-
rate. As section 14D indicates, construct
validity is a relatively new procedure in
the field of personnel selection and there
is not yet substantial guidance in the
professional literature as to its use in the
area of employment practices. The provi-
sions on construct validity have been
revised to meet the concerns expressed by
the A.P.A. The construct validity section
as revised clarifies what is required by
the Federal enforcement agencies at this
stage in the development of construct
validity. The guidelines leave open the
possibility that different evidence of
construct validity may be accepted in the
future, as new methodologies develop and
become incorporated in professional stan-
dards and other professional literature.
10. Documentation (section 15). Com-
menters stated that the documentation
section did not conform to the technical
requirements of the guidelines or was
otherwise inadequate. Section 15 has
been clarified and two significant chang-
es have been made to minimize the
recordkeeping burden (See overview,
part VIII.)
11. Definitions (section 16). The defini-
tion of work behavior in the December 30,
1977 draft was criticized by the A.P.A.
and others as being too vague to provide
adequate guidance to those using the
guidelines who must identify work be-
havior as a part of any validation tech-
nique. Other comments criticized the
absence or inadequacies of other defini-
tions, especially "adverse impact." Sub-
stantial revisions of and additions to this
section were therefore made.
UNIFORM GUIDELINES ON
EMPLOYEE SELECTION
PROCEDURES (1978)
Note.-These guidelines are issued
jointly by four agencies. Separate official
adoptions follow the guidelines in this
part IV as follows: Civil Service Commis-
sion, Department of Justice, Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity Commission, De-
partment of Labor.
For official citation see section 18 of
these guidelines.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
1. Statement of Purpose
A. Need for Uniformity-Issuing Agencies
B. Purpose of Guidelines
C. Relation to Prior Guidelines
cope
2.S
A. Application of Guidelines
B. Employment Decisions
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
18 1EXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES
1). Limitations
E. Indian Preference Not Affected
Discrimination Defined: Relationship Be-
tween Use of Selection Procedures and
Discrimination
A. Procedure Having Adverse Impact
Constitutes Discrimination Unless Justi-
fied
B. Consideration of Suitable Alternative
Selection Procedures
4. Information on Impact
A. Records Concerning Impact
B. Applicable Race, Sex and Ethnic Groups
For Record Keeping
C. Evaluation of Selection Rates. The
"Bottom Line"
1). Adverse Impact And The "Four-Fifths
Rule"
E. Consideration of User's Equal Employ-
meut Opportunity Posture
General Standards for Validity Studies
A. Acceptable types of Validity Studies
B. Criterion-Related, Content, and Con-
struct Validity
C. Guidelines Are Consistent with Profes-
sional Standards
D. Need For Documentation of Validity
E. Accuracy and Standardization
F. Caution Against Selection on Basis of
Knowledges, Skills or Abilities Learned in
Brief Orientation Period
G. Method of Use of Selection Procedures
H. Cutoff Scores
1. Use of Selection Procedures of Higher
Level Jobs
J. Interim Use of Selection Procedures
K. Review of Validity Studies for Currency
6. Use of Selection Procedures Which Have
Not Been Validated
A. Use of Alternate Selection Procedures to
Eliminate Adverse Impact
13. Where Validity Studies Cannot or Need
Not, Be Performed
(1) Where Informal or Unscored Procedures
Aro Used
(2) Where Formal And Scored Procedures
Are Used
Use of Other Validity Studies
A. Validity Studies not Conducted by the
User
B. Use of Criterion-Related Validity Evi-
dence from Other Sources
(1) Vlidity Evidence
(2) Job Similarity
(3) Fairness Evidence
C. Validity Evidence from Multi-Unit Study
D. Other Significant Variables
8. Cooperative Studies
A. Encouragement of Cooperative Studies
B. Standards for Use of Cooperative Studies
9. No Assubnption of Validity
A. Unadseptable Substitutes for Evidence of
Validity
B. Encoluragement of Professional Supervi-
sion
10. Employment Agencies and Employment
Services
A. Whete Selection Procedures Are Devised
by A4ency
B. Whete Selection Procedures Are Devised
Elsevl' here
11. Dispar$te Treatment
12. Retesting of Applicants
13. Affirn*itive Action
A. Affirmative Action Obligations
B. Encouragement of Voluntary Affirma-
tive fiction Programs
TECHNICAL STANDARDS
14. Technial Standards for Validity Studies
A. Val city Studies Should be Based on
Rev i w of Information about the Job
B. Tech rival Standards for Criterion-Relat-
!vl V lidity Studies
(1) Teel nical Feasibility
(2) Analysis of the Job
(3) Crittddrion Measures
(4) Representativeness of the Sample
(5) Statistical Relationships
(6) Opekational Use of Selection Procedures
(7) Over{-Statement of Validity Findings
(8) Fairness
(a) Unfairness Defined
(h) Inve+tigation of Fairness
(c) Genbral Considerations in Fairness In-
vPsti ations
(d) Whdn Unfairness Is Shown
(e) Technical Feasibility of Fairness Studies
(f) Continued Use of Selection Procedures
Whelm Fairness Studies not Feasible
C. Technical Standards for Content Validity
Studies
(1) Appropriateness of Content Validity
Stud es
(2) Job Analysis for Content Validity
(3) Development of Selection Procedure
(4) Standards For Demonstrating Content
Validity
(5) Reliability
(6) Prior Training or Experience
(7) Traihing Success
(8) Operational Use
(9) Raking Based on Content Validity
Stud es
D. Technical Standards For Construct Va-
liditvl Studies
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES 19
(1) Appropriateness of Construct Validity
Studies
(2) Job Analysis For Construct Validity
Studies
(3) Relationship to the Job
(4) Use of Construct Validity Study Without
New Criterion-Related Evidence
(a) Standards for Use
(b) Determination of Common Work Behav-
iors
DOCUMENTATION OF IMPACT
AND VALIDITY EVIDENCE
15. Documentation of Impact and Validity
Evidence
A. Required Information
(1) Simplified Recordkeeping for Users
With Less Than 100 Employees
(2) Information on Impact
(a) Collection of Information on Impact
(b) When Adverse Impact Has Been Elimi-
nated in The Total Selection Process
(c) When Data Insufficient to Determine
Impact
(3) Documentation of Validity Evidence
(a) Type of Evidence
(b) Form of Report
(c) Completeness
B. Criterion-Related Validity Studies
(1) User(s), Location(s), and Date(s) of
Study
(2) Problem and Setting
(3) Job Analysis or Review of Job Informa-
tion
(4) Job Titles and Codes
(5) Criterion Measures
(6) Sample Description
(7) Description of Selection Procedure
(8) Techniques and Results
(9) Alternative Procedures Investigated
(10) Uses and Applications
(11) Source Data
(12) Contact Person
(13) Accuracy and Completeness
C. Content Validity Studies
(1) User(s), Location(s), and Date(s) of
Study
(2) Problem and Setting
(3) Job Analysis-Content of the Job
(4) Selection Procedure and its Content
(5) Relationship Between Selection Proce-
dure and the Job
(6) Alternative Procedures Investigated
(7) Uses and Applications
(8) Contact Person
(9) Accuracy and Completeness
D. Construct Validity Studies
(1) User(s), Location(s), and Date(s) of
Study
(2) Problem and Setting
(3) Construct Definition
(4) Job Analysis
(5) Job Titles and Codes
(6) Selection Procedure
(7) Relationship to Job Performance
(8) Alternative Procedures Investigated
(9) Uses and Applications
(10) Accuracy and Completeness
(11) Source Data
(12) Contact Person
E. Evidence of Validity from Other Studies
(1) Evidence from Criterion-Re)gted Validi-
ty Studies
(a) Job Information
(b) Relevance of Criteria
(c) Other Variables
(d) Use of the Selection Procedure
(e) Bibliography
(2) Evidence from Content Validity Studies
(3) Evidence from Construct Validity Stu-
dies
F. Evidence of Validity from Cooperative
Studies
G. Selection for Higher Level Jobs
H. Interim Use of Selection Procedures
DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX
17. Policy Statement on Affirmative Action
(see Section 13B)
18. Citations
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
SECTION 1. Statement of purpose.-A.
Need for uniformity-Issuing agencies.
The Federal Government's need for a
uniform set of principles on the question
of the use of tests and other selection
procedures has long been recognized. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion, the Civil Service Commission, the
Department of Labor, and the Depart-
ment of Justice jointly have adopted
these uniform guidelines to meet that
need, and to apply the same principles to
the Federal Government as are applied to
other employers.
B. Purpose of guidelines. These guide-
lines incorporate a single set of principles
which are designed to assist employers,
labor organizations, employment agen-
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
ties. and licensing and certification
boards to comply with requirements of
Federal law prohibiting employment
practices which discriminate on grounds
of race, color, religion, sex, and national
origin. They are designed to provide a
framework for determining the proper
use of tests and other selection proce-
dures. These guidelines do not, require a
user to conduct validity studies of selec-
tion procedures where no adverse impact
results. However, all users are encour-
aged to use selection procedures which
are valid, especially users operating un-
der merit principles.
C Nelatian to prior guidelines. These
guidelines are based upon and supersede
previously issued guidelines on employee
selection procedures. These guidelines
have been built upon court decisions, the
previously issued guidelines of the agen-
cies, and the practical experience of the
agencies, as well as the standards of the
psychoiogical profession. These guidelines
are intended to be consistent with exist-
ing law.
Sec'. 2. -cope.-A, Application of guide-
lin.rs. These guidelines will be applied by
the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission in the enforcement of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Act of 1972 (hereinafter
"Title VII"); by the Department of
Labor, and the contract compliance agen-
cies until the transfer of authority con-
templated by the President's Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 1 of 1978, in the administra-
tion and enforcement of Executive Order
11246, as amended by Executive Order
11375 (hereinafter "Executive Order
11246"); by the Civil Service Commission
and other Federal agencies subject to
section 717 of Title VII: by the Civil
Service Commission in exercising its
responsibilities toward State and local
governments under section 208(h)(1) of
the Intergovernmental-Personnel Act; by
the Department of Justice in exercising
Approved For Release 2001/11/07
its responsibilities under Federal law; by
the Olffice of Revenue Sharing of the
Department of the Treasury under the
State kind Local Fiscal Assistance Act of
1972, as amended; and by any other
Federal agency which adopts them.
B. Rmployment decisions. These guide-
lines Apply to tests and other selection
procedures which are used as a basis for
any employment decision. Employment
decisiofns include but, are not limited to
hiring o promotion, demotion, membership
(for example, in a labor organization),
referrdl, retention, and licensing and
certification, to the extent that licensing
and certification may be covered by
Federal( equal employment opportunity
law. Other selection decisions, such as
selection for training or transfer, may
also bd considered employment decisions
if theyl lead to any of the decisions listed
above.l
C. %,lerti.on procedures. These guide-
lines a )ply only to selection procedures
which are used as a basis for making
employiment decisions. For example, the
use of (recruiting procedures designed to
attract! members of a particular race, sex,
or ethic group, which were previously
denied ! employment opportunities or
which Are currently underutilized, may be
necessdry to bring an employer into
compliance with Federal law, and is
freque tly an essential element of any
effecti*e affirmative action program; but
recruitinent practices are not considered
by these guidelines to be selection proce-
dures. Aimilarly, these guidelines do not
pertain! to the question of the lawfulness
of a sem iority system within the meaning
of section 703(h), Executive Order 11246
or other provisions of Federal law or
regulation, except to the extent that such
systems utilize selection procedw ,!s to
determine qualifications or abilities to
perfornh the job. Nothing in these guide-
lines is intended or should be interpreted
as discouraging the use of a selection
proced . re for the purpose of determining
: CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF"UNIFORm GUIDELINES 21
qualifications or for the purpose of selec-
tion on the basis of relative qualifications,
if the selection procedure had been vali-
dated in accord with these guidelines for
each such purpose for which it is to be
used.
D. Limitations. These guidelines apply
only to persons subject to Title VII,
Executive Order 11246, or other equal
employment opportunity requirements of
Federal law. These guidelines do not
apply to responsibilities under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, as amended, not to discriminate on
the basis of age, or under sections 501,
503, and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, not to discriminate on the basis of
handicap.
E. Indian preference not affected. These
guidelines do not restrict any obligation
imposed or right granted by Federal law
to users to extend a preference in em-
ployment to Indians living on or near an
Indian reservation in connection with
employment opportunities on or near an
Indian reservation.
Sec. 3. Discrimination defined: Rela-
tionship between use of selection proce-
dures and discrimination.-A. Procedure
having adverse impact constitutes dis-
crimination unless justified. The use of
any selection procedure which has an
adverse impact on the hiring, promotion,
or other employment or membership
opportunities of members of any race,
sex, or ethnic group will be considered to
be discriminatory and inconsistent with
these guidelines, unless the procedure has
been validated in accordance with these
guidelines, or the provisions of section 6
below are satisfied.
B. Consideration of suitable alternative
selection procedures. Where two or more
selection procedures are available which
serve the user's legitimate interest in
efficient and trustworthy workmanship,
and which are substantially equally valid
for a given purpose, the user should use
the procedure which has been demon-
strated to have the lesser adverse impact.
Accordingly, whenever a validity study is
called for by these guidelines, the user
should include, as a part of the validity
study, an investigation of suitable alter-
native selection procedures and suitable
alternative methods of using tw selection
procedure which have as lithe adverse
impact as possible, to determine the
appropriateness of using or validating
them in accord with these guidelines. If a
user has made a reasonable effort to
become aware of such alternative proce-
dures and validity has been demonstrated
in accord with these guidelines, the use of
the test or other selection procedure may
continue until such time as it should
reasonably be reviewed for currency.
Whenever the user is shown an alterna-
tive selection procedure with evidence of
less adverse impact and substantial evi-
dence of validity for the same job in
similar circumstances, the user should
investigate it to determine the appropri-
ateness of using or validating it in accord
with these guidelines. This subsection is
not intended to preclude the combination
of procedures into a significantly more
valid procedure, if the use of such a
combination has been shown to be in
compliance with the guidelines.
Sec. 4. Information on impact.-A.
Records concerning impact. Each user
should maintain and have available for
inspection records or other information
which will disclose the impact which its
tests and other selection procedures have
upon employment opportunities of per-
sons by identifiable race, sex, or ethnic
group as set forth in subparagraph B
below in order to determine compliance
with these guidelines. Where there are
large numbers of applicants and proce-
dures are administered frequently, such
information may be retained on a sample
basis, provided that the sample is appro-
priate in terms of the applicant popula-
tion and adequate in size.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES
B_ Applicable race, sex, and ethnic Federal enforcement agencies will expect,
groups for record keeping. The records a user to evaluate the individual compo-
called for by this section are to be nents C'or adverse impact and may, where
maintained by sex, and the following appropriate, take enforcement action
races and ethnic groups: Blacks (Neg- with 1?espect to the individual compo-
roes), American Indians (including Alas- nents:l (1) where the selection procedure
kan Natives), Asians (including Pacific is a significant factor in the continuation
Islanders), Hispanic (including persons of of patterns of assignments of incumbent
Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or employees caused by prior discriminatory
South American, or other Spanish origin employment practices, (2) where the
or culture regardless of race), Whites weigh of court decisions or administra-
(Caucasians) other than Hispanic, and tive i terpretation% hold that a specific
totals. The race, sex, and ethnic classifica- procedure (such as height or weight
tions called for by this section are consis- requirements or no-arrest records) is not
tent with the Equal Employment Oppor- job relkited in the same or similar circum-
tunity Standard Form 100, Employer stancet-. In unusual circumstances, other
Information Report EEO-1 series of than those listed in (1) and (2) above, the
reports. The user should adopt safeguards Federal enforcement agencies may re-
to insure that the records required by this quest Et user to evaluate the individual
paragraph are used for appropriate pur- components for adverse impact and may,
poses such as determining adverse im- where! appropriate, take enforcement
pact, or (where required) for developing action j with respect to the individual
and monitoring affirmative action pro- compotient.
grams, and that such records are not used D. Adverse impact and the 'four fifths
improperly. See sections 4E and
17(4),
below.
C. Evaluation. of selection, rates.
The
"bottom line." If the information called for the group with the highest rate will
for by sections 4A and B above shows generally be regarded by the Federal
that the total selection process for a job enforcement agencies as evidence of
has an adverse impact, the individual adverse impact, while a greater than
components of the selection process four-firths rate will generally not be
should be evaluated for adverse impact. regardb d by Federal enforcement, agen-
If this information shows that the total ties aslevidence of adverse impact. Small-
selection process does not have an ad- er differences in selection rate may
verse impact, the Federal enforcement nevertheless constitute adverse impact,
agencies, in the exercise of their adminis- where h;hey are significant in both statis-
trative and prosecutorial discretion, in tical arid practical terms or where a user's
usual circumstances, will not expect a actions have discouraged applicants dis-
user to evaluate the individual compo- proportionately on grounds of race, sex,
nents for adverse impact, or to validate or ethnic group. Greater differences in
such individual components, and will not selection rate may not constitute adverse
take enforcement action based upon impact! where the differences are based
adverse impact of any component of that on small numbers and are not statistically
process, including the separate parts of a significant, or where special recruiting or
multipart selection procedure or any other I{rograms cause the pool of minori-
separate procedure that is used as an ty or fbmale candidates to be atypical of
alternative method of selection. How- the notmal pool of applicants from that
ever, in the following circumstances the group. Where the user's evidence con-
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
rule." 4'l, selection rate for any race, sex,
or ethnic group which is less than four-
fifths /5) (or eighty percent) of the rate
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF U NIFORM GUIDELINES 23
cerning the impact of a selection proce-
dure indicates adverse impact but is
based upon numbers which are too small
to be reliable, evidence concerning the
impact of the procedure over a longer
period of time and/or evidence concern-
ing the impact which the selection proce-
dure had when used in the same manner
in similar circumstances elsewhere may
be considered in determining adverse
impact. Where the user has not main-
tained data on adverse impact as required
by the documentation section of applica-
ble guidelines, the Federal enforcement
agencies may draw an inference of ad-
verse impact of the selection process from
the failure of the user to maintain such
data, if the user has an underutilization
of a group in the job category, as
compared to the group's representation in
the relevant labor market or, in the case
of jobs filled from within, the applicable
work force.
E. Consideration of user's equal employ-
ment opportunity posture. In carrying out
their obligations, the Federal enforce-
ment agencies will consider the general
posture of the user with respect to equal
employment opportunity for the job or
group of jobs in question. Where a user
has adopted an affirmative action pro-
gram, the Federal enforcement agencies
will consider the provisions of that pro-
gram, including the goals and timetables
which the user has adopted and the
progress which the user has made in
carrying out that program and in meet-
ing the goals and timetables. While such
affirmative action programs may in de-
sign and execution be race, color, sex, or
ethnic conscious, selection procedures
under such programs should be based
upon the ability or relative ability to do
the work.
Sec. 5. General standards for validity
studies.-A. Acceptable types of validity
studies. For the purposes of satisfying
these guidelines, users may rely upon
criterion-related validity studies, content
validity studies or construct validity
studies, in accordance with the standards
set forth in the technical standards of
these guidelines, section 14 below. New
strategies for showing the validity of
selection procedures will be evaluated as
they become accepted by the psychologi-
cal profession.
B. Criterion-related, content, and con-
struct validity. Evidence of the validity
of a test or other selection procedure by a
criterion-related validity study should
consist of empirical data demonstrating
that the selection procedure is predictive
of or significantly correlated with impor-
tant elements of job performance. See
section 14B below. Evidence of the validi-
ty of a test or other selection procedure
by a content validity study should consist
of data showing that the content of the
selection procedure is representative of
important aspects of performance on the
job for which the candidates are to be
evaluated. See section 14C below. Evi-
dence of the validity of a test or other
selection procedure through a construct
validity study should consist of data
showing that the procedure measures the
degree to which candidates have identifi-
able characteristics which have been
determined to be important in successful
performance in the job for which the
candidates are to be evaluated. See
section 14D below.
C. Guidelines are consistent with pro-
fessional standards. The provisions of
these guidelines relating to validation of
selection procedures are intended to be
consistent with generally accepted pro-
fessional standards for evaluating stand-
ardized tests and other selection proce-
dures, such as those described in the
Standards for Educational and Psycho-
logical Tests prepared by a joint commit-
tee of the American Psychological Associ-
ation, the American Educational Re-
search Association, and the National
Council on Measurement in Education
(American Psychological Association,
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
24 TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES
Washington, D.C., 1974) (hereinafter
"A.P.A. Standards") and standard text-
books and journals in the field of person-
nel selection.
D. Need for documentation of validity.
For any selection procedure which is part
of a selection process which has an
adverse impact and which selection proce-
dure has an adverse impact, each user
should maintain and have available such
documentation as is described in section
15 below.
E. Accuracy and standardization. Va-
lidity studies should be carried out under
conditions which assure insofar as possi-
ble the adequacy and accuracy of the
research and the report. Selection proce-
dures should be administered and scored
under standardized conditions.
F. Caution against selection on basis of
knowledges, skills, or ability learned in
brief orientation period. In general, users
should avoid making employment deci-
sions on the basis of measures of know-
ledges, skills, or abilities which are nor-
mally learned in a brief orientation
period, and which have an adverse im-
pact.
G. Method of use of selection procedures.
The evidence of both the validity and
utility of a selection procedure should
support the method the user chooses for
operational use of the procedure, if that
method of use has a greater adverse
impact than another method of use.
Evidence which may be sufficient to
support the use of a selection procedure
on a pass/fail (screening) basis. may be
insufficient to support the use of the
same procedure on a ranking basis under
these guidelines. Thus, if a user decides to
use a selection procedure on a ranking
basis, and that method of use has a
greater adverse impact than use on an
appropriate pass/fail basis (see section
5H below), the user should have suffi-
cient evidence of validity and utility to
support the use on a ranking basis. See
Approved For Release 2001/11/07
sections 3B, 14B (5) and (6), and 14C (8)
and (9).
H. Cutoff scores. Where cutoff scores
are used, they should normally be set so
as to be reasonable and consistent with
normal expectations of acceptable profi-
ciency within the work force. Where
applicants are ranked on the basis of
properly validated selection procedures
and those applicants scoring below a
higher cutoff score than appropriate in
light of such expectations have little or
no chance of being selected for employ-
ment, the higher cutoff score may be
appropriate, but the degree of adverse
impact should be considered.
I. Use of selection procedures for higher
level jobs. If job progression structures
are so established that employees will
probably, within a reasonable period of
time and in a majority of cases, progress
to a higher level, it may be considered
that the applicants are being evaluated
for a job or jobs at the higher level.
However, where job progression is not so
nearly automatic, or the time span is such
that higher level jobs or employees'
potential may be expected to change, in
significant ways, it should be considered
that applicants are being evaluated for a
job at or near the entry level. A "reason-
able period of time" will vary for differ-
ent jobs and employment situations but
will seldom be more than 5 years. Use of
selection procedures to evaluate appli-
cants for a higher level job would not be
appropriate:
(1) If the majority of those remaining
employed do not progress to the higher
level job;
(2) If there is a reason to doubt that the
higher level job will continue to require
essentially similar skills during the pro-
gression period; or
(3) If the selection procedures measure
knowledges, skills, or abilities required
for advancement which would be expect-
ed to develop principally from the train-
ing or experience on the job.
: CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OFUNIFORm GUIDELINES 25
J. Interim use of selection procedures.
Users may continue the use of a selection
procedure which is not at the moment
fully supported by the required evidence
of validity, provided: (1) The user has
available substantial evidence of validity,
and (2) the user has in progress, when
technically feasible, a study which is
designed to produce the additional evi-
dence required by these guidelines within
a reasonable time. If such a study is not
technically feasible, see section 6B. If the
study does not demonstrate validity, this
provision of these guidelines for interim
use shall not constitute a defense in any
action, nor shall it relieve the user of any
obligations arising under Federal law.
K. Review of validity studies for cur-
rency. Whenever validity has been shown
in accord with these guidelines for the
use of a particular selection procedure for
a job or group of jobs, additional studies
need not be performed until such time as
the validity study is subject to review as
provided in section 3B above. There are
no absolutes in the area of determining
the currency of a validity study. All
circumstances concerning the study, in-
cluding the validation strategy used, and
changes in the relevant labor market and
the job should be considered in the
determination of when a validity study is
outdated.
Sec. 6. Use of selection procedures which
have not been validated.-A. Use of alter-
native selection procedures to eliminate
adverse impact. A user may choose to
utilize alternative selection procedures in
order to eliminate adverse impact or as
part of an affirmative action program.
See section 13 below. Such alternative
procedures should eliminate the adverse
impact in the total selection process,
should be lawful and should be as job
related as possible.
B. Where validity studies cannot or
need not be performed. There are circum-
stances in which a user cannot or need
not utilize the validation techniques con-
templated by these guidelines. In such
circumstances, the user should utilize
selection procedures which are as job
related as possible and which will mini-
mize or eliminate adverse impact, as set
forth below.
(1) Where informal or unscored proce-
dures are used. When an informal or
unscored selection procedure which has
an adverse impact is utilized, the user
should eliminate the adverse impact, or
modify the procedure to one which is a
formal, scored or quantified measure or
combination of measures and then vali-
date the procedure in accord with these
guidelines, dr otherwise justify continued
use of the procedure in accord with
Federal law.
(2) Where formal and scored procedures
are used. When a formal and scored
selection procedure is used which has an
adverse impact, the validation techniques
contemplated by these guidelines usually
should be followed if technically feasible.
Where the user cannot or need not follow
the validation techniques anticipated by
these guidelines, the user should either
modify the procedure to eliminate ad-
verse impact or otherwise justify contin-
ued use of the procedure in accord with
Federal law.
Sec. 7. Use of other validity studies.-A.
Validity studies not conducted by the
user. Users may, under certain circum-
stances, support the use of selection
procedures by validity studies conducted
by other users or conducted by test
publishers or distributors and described in
test manuals. While publishers of selec-
tion procedures have a professional obli-
gation to provide evidence of validity
which meets generally accepted profes-
sional standards (see section 5C above),
users are cautioned that they are respon-
sible for compliance with these guide-
lines. Accordingly, users seeking to obtain
selection procedures from publishers and
distributors should be careful to deter-
mine that, in the event the user becomes
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
26 TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES
subject to the validity requirements of
these guidelines, the necessary informa-
tion to support validity has been deter-
mined and will be made available to the
user.
B. Use of criterion-related validity
evidence from other sources. Criterion-
related validity studies conducted by one
test user, or described in test manuals
and the professional literature, will be
considered acceptable for use by another
user when the following requirements
are met:
(1) Validity evidence. Evidence from
the available studies meeting the stan-
dards of section 14B below clearly de-
monstrates that the selection procedure is
valid:
(2) Job similarity. The incumbents in
the user's job and the incumbents in the
job or group of jobs on which the validity
study was conducted perform substan-
tially the same major work behaviors, as
shown by appropriate job analyses both
on the job or group of jobs on which the
validity study was performed and on the
job for which the selection procedure is to
be used; and
(3) Fairness evidence. The studies in-
clude a study of test fairness for each
race, sex, and ethnic group which consti-
tutes a significant factor in the borrow-
ing user's relevant labor market for the
job or jobs in question. If the studies
under consideration satisfy (1) and (2)
above but do not contain an investigation
of test fairness, and it is not technically
feasible for the borrowing user to con-
duct an internal study of test fairness,
the borrowing user may utilize the study
until studies conducted elsewhere meet-
ing the requirements of these guidelines
show test unfairness, or until such time as
it becomes technically feasible to conduct
an internal study of test fairness and the
results of that study can be acted upon.
Users obtaining selection procedures
from publishers should consider, as one
factor in the decision to purchase a
Approved For Release 2001/11/07
particular selection procedure, the avail-
ability of evidence concerning test fair-
ness.
C. Validity evidence from multiunit
study. If validity evidence from a study
covering more than one unit within an
organization satisfies the requirements of
section 14B below, evidence of validity
specific to each unit will not be required
unless there are variables which are likely
to affect validity significantly.
D. Other significant variables. If there
are variables in the other studies which
are likely to affect validity significantly,
the user may not rely upon such studies,
but will be expected either to conduct an
internal validity study or to comply with
section 6 above.
Sec. 8. Cooperative studies.-A. En-
couragement of cooperative studies. The
agencies issuing these guidelines encour-
age employers, labor organizations, and
employment agencies to cooperate in
research, development, search for lawful
alternatives, and validity studies in order
to achieve procedures which are consis-
tent with these guidelines.
B. Standards for use of cooperative
studies. If validity evidence from a coop-
erative study satisfies the requirements
of section 14 below, evidence of validity
specific to each user will not be required
unless there are variables in the user's
situation which are likely to affect validi-
ty significantly.
Sec. 9. No assumption of validity.-A.
Unacceptable substitutes for evidence of
validity. Under no circumstances will the
general reputation of a test or other
selection procedures, its author or its
publisher, or casual reports of its validity
be accepted in lieu of evidence of validity.
Specifically ruled out are: assumptions of
validity based on a procedure's name or
descriptive labels; all forms of promotion-
al literature; data hearing on the fre-
quency of a procedure's usage; testimoni-
al statements and credentials of sellers,
users, or consultants; and other nonem-
: CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES 27
pirical or anecdotal accounts of selection agency or service seeks to comply with
practices or selection outcomes. these guidelines by reliance upon validity
B. Encouragement of professional su- studies or other data in the possession of
pervision. Professional supervision of the employer, it should obtain and have
selection activities is encouraged but is available such information.
not a substitute for documented evidence Sec. 11. Disparate treatment. The prin-
of validity. The enforcement agencies ciples of disparate or unequal treatment
will take into account the fact that a must be distinguished from the concepts
thorough job analysis was conducted and of validation. A selection procedure-
erfor-
st job
i
d
t
lid
that careful development and use of a
selection procedure in accordance with
professional standards enhance the prob-
ability that the selection procedure is
valid for the job.
Sec. 10. Employment agencies and
employment services.-A. Where selection
procedures are devised by agency. An
employment agency, including private
employment agencies and State employ-
ment agencies, which agrees to a request
by an employer or labor organization to
devise and utilize a selection procedure
should follow the standards in these
guidelines for determining adverse im-
pact. If adverse impact exists the agency
should comply with these guidelines. An
employment agency is not relieved of its
obligation herein because the user did not
request such validation or has requested
the use of some lesser standard of valida-
tion than is provided in these guidelines.
The use of an employment agency does
not relieve an employer or labor organiza-
tion or other user of its responsibilities
under Federal law to provide equal
employment opportunity or its obliga-
tions as a user under these guidelines.
B. Where selection procedures are de-
vised elsewhere. Where an employment
agency or service is requested to adminis-
ter a selection procedure which has been
devised elsewhere and to make referrals
pursuant to the results, the employment
agency or service should maintain and
have available evidence of the impact of
the selection and referral procedures
which it administers. If adverse impact
results the agency or service should
comply with these guidelines. If the
p
n
aga
e
a
even though va
mance in accordance with these guide-
lines-cannot be imposed upon members
of a race, sex, or ethnic group where
other employees, applicants, or members
have not been subjected to that standard.
Disparate treatment occurs where mem-
bers of a race, sex, or ethnic group have
been denied the same employment, pro-
motion, membership, or other employ-
ment opportunities as have been avail-
able to other employees or applicants.
Those employees or applicants who have
been denied equal treatment, because of
prior discriminatory practices or policies,
must at least be afforded the same
opportunities as had existed for other
employees or applicants during the period
of discrimination. Thus, the persons who
were in the class of persons discriminated
against during the period the user fol-
lowed the discriminatory practices should
be allowed the opportunity to qualify
under less stringent selection procedures
previously followed, unless the user de-
monstrates that the increased standards
are required by business necessity. This
section does not prohibit a user who has
not previously followed merit standards
from adopting merit standards which are
in compliance with these guidelines nor
does it preclude a user who has previously
used invalid or unvalidated selection
procedures from developing and using
procedures which are in accord with these
guidelines.
Sec. 12. Retesting of applicants. Users
should provide a reasonable opportunity
for retesting and reconsideration. Where
examinations are administered periodi-
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
cally with public notice, such reasonable
opportunity exists, unless persons who
have previously been tested are precluded
from retesting. The user may however
take reasonable steps to preserve the
security of its procedures.
r.c. 13. Affirmative action.-A. Affir-
mative anion obligations. The use of
selection procedures which have been
validated pursuant to these guidelines
does not relieve users of any obligations
they may have to undertake affirmative
action to assure equal employment oppor-
tunity. Nothing in these guidelines is
intended to preclude the use of lawful
selection procedures which assist in reme-
dying the effects of prior discriminatory
practices, or the achievement of affirma-
tive action objectives.
F. Encouragement of voluntary affir-
mative action programs. These guidelines
are also intended to encourage the adop-
tion and implementation of voluntary
affirmative action programs by users
who have no obligation under Federal
law to adopt them; but are not intended
to impose any new obligations in that
regard. The agencies issuing and endors-
ing these guidelines endorse for all pri-
vate employers and reaffirm for all
governmental employers the Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity Coordinating
Council's "Policy Statement on Affirma-
tive Action Programs for State and Local
Government Agencies" (41 FR 38814,
September 13, 1976). That policy state-
ment is attached hereto as appendix,
section 17.
Technical Standards
Sec. 14. Technical standards for validi-
ty studies. The following minimum stan-
dards, as applicable, should be met in
conducting a validity study. Nothing in
these guidelines is intended to preclude
the development and use of other profes-
ionaliy acceptable techniques with re-
spect to validation of selection proce-
dures. Where it is not technically feasible
For a user to conduct a validity study, the
user has the obligation otherwise to
comply with these guidelines. See sec-
tions 6 and 7 above.
A. Validity studies should be based on
review of information about the job. Any
validity study should be based upon a
review of information about the job for
which the selection procedure is to be
used. The review should include a job
analysis except as provided in section
14B(3) below with respect to criterion-
related validity. Any method of job
analysis may be used if it provides the
information required for the specific
validation strategy used.
B. Technical standards for criterion-
related validity studies.--(1) Technical
feasibility. Users choosing to validate a
selection procedure by a criterion-related
validity strategy should determine
whether it is technically feasible (as
defined in section 16) to conduct such a
study in the particular employment con-
text. The determination of the number of
persons necessary to permit the conduct
of a meaningful criterion-related study
should be made by the user on the basis of
all relevant information concerning the
selection procedure, the potential sample
and the employment situation. Where
appropriate, jobs with substantially the
same major work behaviors may be
grouped together for validity studies, in
order to obtain an adequate sample.
These guidelines do not require a user to
hire or promote persons for the purpose
of making it possible to conduct a criteri-
on-related study.
(2) Analysis of the job. There should be
a review of job information to determine
measures of work behavior(s) or perfor-
mance that are relevant to the job or
group of jobs in question. These measures
or criteria are relevant to the extent that
they represent critical or important job
duties, work behaviors or work outcomes
as developed from the review of job
information. The possibility of bias
should be considered both in selection of
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES 29
the criterion measures and their applica-
tion. In view of the possibility of bias in
subjective evaluations, supervisory rating
techniques and instructions to raters
should be carefully developed. All criteri-
on measures and the methods for gather-
ing data need to be examined for freedom
from factors which would unfairly alter
scores of members of any group. The
relevance of criteria and their freedom
from bias are of particular concern when
there are significant differences in mea-
sures of job performance for different
groups.
(3) Criterion measures. Proper safe-
guards should be taken to insure that
scores on selection procedures do not
enter into any judgments of employee
adequacy that are to be used as criterion
measures. Whatever criteria are used
should represent important or critical
work behavior(s) or work outcomes. Cer-
tain criteria may be used without a full
job analysis if the user can show the
importance of the criteria to the particu-
lar employment context. These criteria
include but are not limited to production
rate, error rate, tardiness, absenteeism,
and length of service. A standardized
rating of overall work performance may
be used where a study of the job shows
that it is an appropriate criterion. Where
performance in training is used as a
criterion, success in training should be
properly measured and the relevance of
the training should be shown either
through a comparison of the content of
the training program with the critical or
important work behavior(s) of the job(s),
or through a demonstration of the rela-
tionship between measures of perfor-
mance in training and measures of job
performance. Measures of relative suc-
cess in training include but are not
limited to instructor evaluations, perfor-
mance samples, or tests. Criterion mea-
sures consisting of paper and pencil tests
will be closely reviewed for job relevance.
(4) Representativeness of the sample.
Whether the study is predictive or con-
current, the sample subjects should inso-
far as feasible be representative of the
candidates normally available in the
relevant labor market for the job or
group of jobs in question, and should
insofar as feasible include the races,
sexes, and ethnic groups normally avail-
able in the relevant job market. In
determining the representativeness of
the sample in a concurrent validity study,
the user should take into account the
extent to which the specific knowledges
or skills which are the primary focus of
the test are those which employees learn
on the job.
Where samples are combined or com-
pared, attention should be given to see
that such samples are comparable in
terms of the actual job they perform, the
length of time on the job where time on
the job is likely to affect performance,
and other relevant factors likely to affect
validity differences; or that these factors
are included in the design of the study
and their effects identified.
(5) Statistical relationships. The degree
of relationship between selection proce-
dure scores and criterion measures should
be examined and computed, using profes-
sionally acceptable statistical procedures.
Generally, a selection procedure is consid-
ered related to the criterion, for the
purposes of these guidelines, when the
relationship between performance on the
procedure and performance on the crite-
rion measure is statistically significant at
the 0.05 level of significance, which
means that it is sufficiently high as to
have a probability of no more than one (1)
in twenty (20) to have occurred by
chance. Absence of a statistically signifi-
cant relationship between a selection
procedure and job performance should
not necessarily discourage other investi-
gations of the validity of that selection
procedure.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
hFXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES,
Operational use of selection xrroce-
dures. Users should evaluate each selec-
tion procedure to assure that it is appro-
priate for operational use, including
establishment of cutoff scores or rank
ordering. Generally, if other factors re-
main the same, the greater the magni-
tude of the relationship (e.g., correlation
coerficent) between performance on a
selection procedure and one or more
criteria of performance on the job, and
the t>reater the importance and number
of aspects of Job performance covered by
the criteria, the more likely it is that the
procedure will he appropriate for use.
Reliance upon a selection procedure
which is significantly related to a criteri-
on measure, but which is based upon a
study involving a large number of sub-
jects and has a low correlation coefficient
will be subject to close review if it has a
large adverse impact. Sole reliance upon
a single selection instrument which is
related to only one of many job duties or
aspects of job performance will also be
subject to close review. The appropriate-
ness of a selection procedure is best
evaluated in each particular situation and
there are no minimum correlation coeffi-
cients applicable to all employment situa-
tions. In determining whether a selection
procedure is appropriate for operational
use the following considerations should
also he taken into account: The degree of
adverse impact of the procedure, the
availability of other selection procedures
of greater or substantially equal validity.
(7) Overstatement of validity findings.
Users should avoid reliance unon tech-
niques which tend to overestimate validi-
'y findings as a result of capitalization on
chance unless an appropriate safeguard is
taken- Reliance upon a few selection
procedures or criteria of successful job
performance when many selection proce-
dures or criteria of performance have
been studied, or the use of optimal
statistical weights for selection proce-
dures computed in one sample, are tech-
niques which tend to inflate validity
estimates as a result of chance. Use of a
large sample is one safeguard: cross-
validation is another.
(R) Fairness This section generally calls
for studies of unfairness where technical-
ly feasible. The concept of fairness or
unfairness of selection procedures is a
developing concept. In addition, fairness
studies generally require substantial
numbers of employees in the job or group
of jobs being studied. For these reasons,
the Federal enforcement agencies recog-
nize that. the obligation to conduct studies
of fairness imposed by the guidelines
generally will be upon users or groups of
users with a large number of persons in a
job class, or test developers; and that
small users utilizing their own selection
procedures will generally not be obligated
to conduct such studies because it will be
technically infeasible for them to do so.
(a) Unfairness defined. When members
of one race, sex, or ethnic group charac-
teristically obtain lower scores on a
selection procedure than members of
another group, and the differences in
scores are not reflected in differences in a
measure of job performance, use of the
selection procedure may unfairly deny
opportunities to members of the group
that obtains the lower scores.
(h) Investigation of fair nvss Where a
selection procedure results in an adverse
impact on a race, sex, or ethnic group
identified in accordance with the classifi-
cations set forth in section 4 above and
that group is a significant factor in the
relevant labor market, the user generally
should investigate the possible existence
of unfairness for that group if it is
technically feasible to do so. The greater
the severity of the adverse impact on a
group, the greater the need to investigate
the possible existence of unfairness.
Where the weight of evidence from other
studies shows that the selection proce-
dure predicts fairly for the group in
question and for the same or similar jobs.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110003-8
TEXT OF U NIFORM GUIDELINES
such evidence may be relied on in connec- cance. Guidelines do not require a user to
tion with the selection procedure at issue. hire or promote persons on the basis of
(c) General -consideration in fairness group classifications for the purpose of
investigations. Users conducting a study making it possible to conduct a study of
of fairness should review the A.P.A. fairness; but the user has the obligation
Standards regarding investigation of otherwise to comply with these guide-
possible bias in testing. An investigation lines.
of fairness of a selection procedure (ii) The samples for each group should
depends on both evidence of validity and be comparable in terms of the actual job
the manner in which the selection proce- they perform, length of time on the job
dure is to be used in a particular employ- where time on the job is likely to affect
ment context. Fairness of a selection performance, and other relevant factors
procedure cannot necessarily be specified likely to affect validity differences; or
in advance without investigating these such factors should be included in the
factors. Investigation of fairness of a design of the study and their effects
selection procedure in samples where the identified.
range of scores on selection procedures or (f) Continued use of selection proce-
criterion measures is severely restricted dures when fairness studies not feasible.
for any subgroup sample (as compared to If a study of fairness should otherwise be
other subgroup samples) may produce performed, but is not technically feasible,
misleading evidence of unfairness. That a selection procedure may be used which
factor should accordingly be taken into has otherwisQ met the validity standards
account in conducting such studies and of these guidelines, unless the technical
before reliance is placed on the results. infeasibility resulted from discriminatory
(d) When unfairness is shown. If employment practices which are demon-
unfairness is demonstrated through a strated by facts other than past failure to
showing that members of a particular conform with requirements for validation
group perform better or poorer on the job of selection procedures. However, when it
than their scores on the selection proce- becomes technically feasible for the user
dure would indicate through comparison to perform a study of fairness and such a
with how members of other groups study is otherwise called for, the user
perform, the user may either revise or should conduct the study of fairness.
replace the selection instrument in accor- C. Technical standards for content
dance with these guidelines, or may validity studies. -(1) Appropriateness of
continue to use the selection instrument content validity studies. Users choosing to
operationally with appropriate revisions validate a selection procedure by a con-
in its use to assure compatibility between tent validity strategy should determine
the probability of successful job perfor- whether it is appropriate to conduct such
nt
ecparticular
procedure employment
mance and the probability of being aontstuy in e dt A the
,selected.
(e) Technical feasibility of fairness supported by a content validity strategy
studies. In addition to the general condi- to the extent that it is a representative
tions needed for technical feasibility for sample of the content of the job. Selec-
the conduct of a criterion-related study tion procedures which purport to measure
(see section 16, below) an investigation of knowledges, skills, or abilities may in
fairness requires the following: certain circumstances be justified by
(i) An adequate sample of persons in content validity, although they may not
each group available for the study to be representative samples, if the knowl-
achieve findings of statistical signifi- edge, skill, or ability measured by the
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
32 TF XT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES
selection procedure can be operationally strated in the selection procedure are a
& fined as provided in section 14C(4) representative sample of the behavior(s)
below, and if that knowledge, skill, or of the job in question or that the selection
ability is a necessary prerequisite to procedure provides a representative sam-
successful job performance, ple of the work product of the job. In the
selection procedure based upon infer- case of a selection procedure measuring a
ences about mental processes cannot be knowledge, skill, or ability, the knowl-
sutrported solely or primarily on the basis edge, skill, or ability being measured
of content validity. Thus, a content should be operationally defined. In the
strategy is not appropriate for demon- case of a selection procedure measuring a
strating the validity of selection proce- knowledge, the knowledge being mea-
dures which purport to measure traits or sured should be operationally defined as
constructs, such as intelligence, aptitude, that body of learned information which is
personality, common sense, judgment, used in and is a necessary prerequisite for
leadership, and spatial ability. Content observable aspects of work behavior of
validity is also not an appropriate strate- the job. In the case of skills or abilities,
gy when the selection procedure involves the skill or ability being measured should
knowledges, skills, or abilities which an be operationally defined in terms of
employee will be expected to learn on the observable aspects of work behavior of
job. the job. For any selection procedure
(2) Job analysis for content validity. measuring a knowledge, skill, or ability
There should he a job analysis which the user should show that (a) the selection
includes an analysis of the important procedure measures and is a representa-
work behavior(s) required for successful tive sample of that knowledge, skill, or
performance and their relative impor- ability; and (b) that knowledge, skill, or
tance and, if the behavior results in work ability is used in and is a necessary
product(s), an analysis of the work prod- prerequisite to performance of critical or
uct(s). Any job analysis should focus on important work behavior(s). In addition,
the work behavior(s) and the tasks associ- to be content valid, a selection procedure
ated with them. If work behavior(s) are measuring a skill or ability should either
not observable, the job analysis should closely approximate an observable work
identify and analyze those aspects of the behavior, or its product should closely
behavior(s) that can he observed and the approximate an observable work product.
observed work products. The work behav- If a test purports to sample a work
ior(s) selected for measurement, should be behavior or to provide a sample of a work
critical work behavior(s) and/or impor- product, the manner and setting of the
tant work behavior(s) constituting most selection procedure and its level and
of the job. complexity should closely approximate
(r) Development of selection procedures. the work situation. The closer the content
A selection procedure designed to mea- and the context of the selection proce-
sure the work behavior may he developed dure are to work samples or work behav-
specifically from the job and job analysis iors, the stronger is the basis for showing
in question, or may have been previously content validity. As the content of the
developed by the user, or by other users selection procedure less resembles a work
or by a test publisher. behavior, or the setting and manner of
(4) Standards for demonstrating con- the administration of the selection proce-
tent nalidity. To demonstrate the content dure less resemble the work situation, or
validity of a selection procedure, a user the result less resembles a work product,
should show that the behavior(s) demon- the less likely the selection procedure is to
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
be content valid, and the greater the need
for other evidence of validity.
(5) Reliability. The reliability of selec-
tion procedures justified on the basis of
content validity should be a matter of
concern to the user. Whenever it is
feasible, appropriate statistical estimates
should be made of the reliability of the
selection procedure.
(6) Prior training or experience. A
requirement for or evaluation of specific
prior training or experience based on
content validity, including a specification
of level or amount of training or experi-
ence, should be justified on the basis of
the relationship between the content of
the training or experience and the con-
tent of the job for which the training or
experience is to be required or evaluated.
The critical consideration is the resem-
blance between the specific behaviors,
products, knowledges, skills, or abilities in
the experience or training and the specif-
ic behaviors, products, knowledges, skills,
or abilities required on the job, whether
or not there is close resemblance between
the experience or training as a whole and
the job as a whole.
(7) Content validity of training success.
Where a measure of success in'a training
program is used as a selection procedure
and the content of a training program is
justified on the basis of content validity,
the use should be justified on the rela-
tionship between the content of the
training program and the content of the
job.
(8) Operational use. A selection proce-
dure which is supported on the basis of
content validity may be used for a job if
it represents a critical work behavior (i.e.,
a behavior which is necessary for perfor-
mance of the job) or work behaviors
which constitute most of the important
parts of the job.
(9) Ranking based on content validity
studies. If a user can show, by a job
analysis or otherwise, that a higher score
on a content valid selection procedure is
likely to result in better job performance,
the results may be used to rank persons
who score above minimum levels. Where
a selection procedure supported solely or
primarily by content validity is used to
rank job candidates, the selection proce-
dure should measure those aspects of
performance which differentiate among
levels of job performance.
D. Technical standards for construct
validity studies.-(1) Approporiateness of
construct validity studies. Construct va-
lidity is a more complex strategy than
either criterion-related or content validi-
ty. Construct validation is a relatively
new and developing procedure in the
employment field, and there is at present
a lack of substantial literature extending
the concept to employment practices. The
user should be aware that the effort to
obtain sufficient empirical support for
construct validity is both an extensive
and arduous effort involving a series of
research studies, which include criterion
related validity studies and which may
include content validity studies. Users
choosing to justify use of a selection
procedure by this strategy should there-
fore take particular care to assure that
the validity study meets the standards set
forth below.
(2) Job analysis for construct validity
studies. There should be a job analysis.
This job analysis should show the work
behavior(s) required for successful per-
formance of the job, or the groups of jobs
being studied, the critical or important
work behavior(s) in the job or group of
jobs being studied, and an identification
of the construct(s) believed to underlie
successful performance of these critical
or important work behaviors in the job or
jobs in question. Each construct should be
named and defined, so as to distinguish it
from other constructs. If a group of jobs
is being studied the jobs should have in
common one or more critical or important
work behaviors at a comparable level of
complexity.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
t:3) Relationship to the job. A selection
procedure should then he identified or
developed which measures the construct
identified in accord with subparagraph
(2) above. The user should show by
empirical evidence that, the selection
procedure is validly related to the con-
struct and that the construct. is validly
related to the performance of critical or
important work behavior(s). The relation-
ship between the construct as measured
by the selection procedure and the related
work behaviorfs) should he supported by
empirical evidence from one or more
criterion-related studies involving the job
or jobs in question which satisfy the
provisions of section 14B above.
(4) Use of construct ?wiiclity study
without, new eriteri.im-related evidence-
(a) Standards for use. Until such time as
professional literature provides more
guidance on the use of construct validity
in employment situations,, the Federal
agencies will accept a claim of construct
validity without a criterion-related study
which satisfies section 14B above only
when the selection procedure has been
used elsewhere in a situation in which a
criterion-related study has been conduct-
ed and the use of a criterion-related
validity study in this context meets the
standards for transportability of criteri-
on-related validity studies as set forth
above in section 7. However, if a study
pertains to a number of jobs having
common critical or important work be-
haviors at a comparable level of complex-
ity, and the evidence satisfies subpara-
graphs 14B (2) and (3) above for those
jobs with criterion-related validity evi-
dence for those jobs, the selection proce-
dure may be used for all the jobs to which
the study pertains. If construct validity is
to be generalized to other jobs or groups
of jobs not in the group studied, the
Federal enforcement agencies will expect
at a minimum additional empirical re-
search evidence meeting the standards of
:uhparagraphs section 14B (2) and (3)
above for the additional jobs or groups of
jobs.
(b) Determination, of common work
behaviors. In determining whether two or
more jobs have one or more work behav-
ior(s) in common, the user should compare
the observed work behavior(s) in each of
the jobs and should compare the observed
work product(s) in each of the jobs. If
neither the observed work behavior(s) in
each of the jobs nor the observed work
product(s) in each of the jobs are the
same, the Federal enforcement agencies
will presume that the work behavior(s) in
each job are different. If the work
behaviors are not observable, then evi-
dence of similarity of work products and
any other relevant research evidence will
be considered in determining whether the
work behavior(s) in the two jobs are the
same.
Documentation of Impact and Validity
Evidence
Sec. 15. Documentation of impact and
validity evidence.-A. Required informa-
tion. Users of selection procedures other
than those users complying with section
15A(1) below should maintain and have
available for each job information on
adverse impact of the selection process
for that job and, where it is determined a
selection process has an adverse impact,
evidence of validity as set forth below.
(1) Simplified recordkeeping for users
with less than 100 employees. In order to
minimize recordkeeping burdens on em-
ployers who employ one hundred (100) or
fewer employees, and other users not
required to file EEO-1, et seq., reports,
such users may satisify the requirements
of this section 15 if they maintain and
have available records showing, for each
year:
(a) The number of persons hired, pro-
moted, and terminated for each job, by
sex, and where appropriate by race and
national origin;
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
(b) The number of applicants for hire
and promotion by sex and where appro-
priate by race and national origin; and
(c) The selection procedures utilized
(either standardized or not standardized).
These records should be maintained for
each race or national origin group (see
section 4 above) constituting more than
two percent (2%) of the labor force in the
relevant labor area. However, it is not
necessary to maintain records by race
and/or national origin (see ? 4 above) if
one race or national origin group in the
relevant labor area constitutes more than
ninety-eight percent (98%) of the labor
force in the area. If the user has reason to
believe that a selection procedure has an
adverse impact, the user should maintain
any available evidence of validity for that
procedure (see sections 7A and 8).
(2) Information on impact-(a) Collec-
tion of information on impact. Users of
selection procedures other than those
complying with section 15A(1) above
should maintain and have available for
each job records or other information
showing whether the total selection pro-
cess for that job has an adverse impact on
any of the groups for which records are
called for by sections 4B above. Adverse
impact determinations should be made at
least annually for each such group which
constitutes at least 2 percent of the labor
force in the relevant labor area or 2
percent of the applicable workforce.
Where a total selection process for a job
has an adverse impact, the user should
maintain and have available records or
other information showing which compo-
nents have an adverse impact. Where the
total selection process for a job does- not
have an adverse impact, information need
not be maintained for individual compo-
nents except in circumstances set forth in
subsection 15A(2)(b) below. If the deter-
mination of adverse impact is made using
a procedure other than the "four-fifths
rule," as defined in the first sentence of
section 4D above, a justification, consis-
tent with section 4D above, for the
procedure used to determine adverse
impact should be available.
(b) When adverse impact has been
eliminated in the total selection process.
Whenever the total selection process for a
particular job has had an adverse impact,
as defined in section 4 above, in any year,
but no longer has an adverse impact, the
user should maintain and have available
the information on individual components
of the selection process required in the
preceding paragraph for the period in
which there was adverse impact. In
addition, the user should continue to
collect such information for at least two
(2) years after the adverse impact has
been eliminated.
(c) When data insufficient to determine
impact. Where there has been an insuffi-
cient number of selections to determine
whether there is an adverse impact of the
total selection process for a particular
job, the user should continue to collect,
maintain and have available the informa-
tion on individual components of the
selection process required in section
15(A)(2)(a) above until the information is
sufficient to determine that the overall
selection process does not have an ad-
verse impact as defined in section 4
above, or until the job has changed
substantially.
(3) Documentation of validity evidence.
-(a) Types of evidence. Where a total
selection process has an adverse impact
(see section 4 above) the user should
maintain and have available for each
component of that process which has an
adverse impact, one or more of the
following types of documentation evi-
dence:
(i) Documentation evidence showing
criterion-related validity of the selection
procedure (see section 15B, below).
(ii) Documentation evidence showing
content validity of the selection proce-
dure (see section 15C, below).
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
36 TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES
(iii) Documentation evidence showing
construct validity of the selection proce-
dure (see section 15D, below).
(iv) Documentation evidence from oth-
er studies showing validity of the selec-
tion procedure in the user's facility (see
section 15E, below).
(v) Documentation evidence showing
why a validity study cannot or need not
be performed and why continued use of
the procedure is consistent with Federal
law,
(b) Form of report. This evidence
should be compiled in a reasonably com-
plete and organized manner to permit
direct evaluation of the validity of the
selection procedure. Previously written
employer or consultant reports of validi-
ty, or reports describing validity studies
completed before the issuance of these
guidelines are acceptable if they are
complete in regard to the documentation
requirements contained in this section, or
if they satisfied requirements of guide-
lines which were in effect when the
validity study was completed. If they are
not complete, the required additional
documentation should be appended. If
necessary information is not available the
report of the validity study may still be
used as documentation, but its adequacy
will he evaluated in terms of compliance
with the requirements of these guide-
lines.
(c) Completeness. In the event that
evidence of validity is reviewed by an
enforcement agency, the validation re-
ports completed after the effective date
of these guidelines are expected to con-
tain the information set forth below.
Evidence denoted by use of the word
"(Essential)" is considered critical. If
information denoted essential is not in-
cluded, the report will be considered
incomplete unless the user affirmatively
demonstrates either its unavailability due
to circumstances beyond the user's con-
trol or special circumstances of the user's
study which make the information irrele-
vant. Evidence not so denoted is desirable
but its absence will not be a basis for
considering a report incomplete. The user
should maintain and have available the
information called for under the heading
"Source Data" in section 15B(11) and
15D(11). While it is a necessary part of
the study, it need not be submitted with
the report. All statistical results should be
organized and presented in tabular or
graphic form to the extent feasible.
R. Criterion-related validity studies.
Reports of criterion-related validity for a
selection procedure should include the
following information:
(1) User(s), location(s), and date(s) of
study. Dates and location(s) of the job
analysis or review of job information, the
date(s) and location(s) of the administra-
tion of the selection procedures and
collection of criterion data, and the time
between collection of data on selection
procedures and criterion measures should
be provided (Essential). If the study was
conducted at several locations, the ad-
dress of each location, including city and
state, should be shown.
(2) Problem and setting. An explicit
definition of the purpose(s) of the study
and the circumstances in which the study
was conducted should be provided. A
description of existing selection proce-
dures and cutoff scores, if any, should be
provided.
(3) Job analysis or review of .job infor-
mation. A description of the procedure
used to analyze the job or group of jobs,
or to review the job information should
be provided (Essential). Where a review
of job information results in criteria
which may be used without a full job
analysis (see section 14B(3)), the basis for
the selection of these criteria should be
reported (Essential). Where a job analysis
is required a complete description of the
work behavior(s) or work outcome(s), and
measures of their criticality or impor-
tance should be provided (Essential). The
report should describe the basis o:i which
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF U NIFORM GUIDELINES 37
the behavior(s) or outcome(s) were deter-
mined to be critical or important, such as
the proportion of time spent on the
respective behaviors, their level of diffi-
culty, their frequency of performance,
the consequences of error, or other appro-
priate factors (Essential). Where two or
more jobs are grouped for a validity
study, the information called for in this
subsection should be provided for each of
the jobs, and the justification for the
grouping (see section 14B(1)) should be
provided (Essential).
(4) Job titles and codes. It is desirable to
provide the user's job title(s) for the
job(s) in question and the corresponding
job title(s) and code(s) from U.S. Employ-
ment Service's Dictionary of Occupation-
al Titles.
(5) Criterion measures. The bases for
the selection of the criterion measures
should be provided, together with refer-
ences to the evidence considered in mak-
ing the selection of criterion measures
(essential). A full description of all crite-
ria on which data were collected and
means by which they were observed,
recorded, evaluated, and quantified,
should be provided (essential). If rating
techniques are used as criterion mea-
sures, the appraisal form(s) and instruc-
tions to the rater(s) should be included as
part of the validation evidence, or should
be explicitly described and available
(essential). All steps taken to insure that
criterion measures are free from factors
which would unfairly alter the scores of
members of any group should be de-
scribed (essential).
(6) Sample description. A description of
how the research sample was identified
and selected should be included (essen-
tial). The race, sex, and ethnic composi-
tion of the sample, including those groups
set forth in section 4A above, should be
described (essential). This description
should include the size of each subgroup
(essential). A description of how the
research sample compares with the rele-
vant labor market or work force, the
method by which the relevant labor
market or work force was defined, and a
discussion of the likely effects on validity
of differences between the sample and
the relevant labor market or work force,
are also desirable. Descriptions of educa-
tional levels, length of service, and age
are also desirable.
(7) Description of selection procedures.
Any measure, combination of measures,
or procedure studied should be completely
and explicitly described or attached (es-
sential). If commercially available selec-
tion procedures are studied, they should
be described by title, form, and publisher
(essential). Reports of reliability esti-
mates and how they were established are
desirable.
(8) Techniques and results. Methods
used in analyzing data should be de-
scribed (essential). Measures of central
tendency (e.g., means) and measures of
dispersion (e.g., standard deviations and
ranges) for all selection procedures and
all criteria should be reported for each
race, sex, and ethnic group which consti-
tutes a significant factor in the relevant
labor market (essential). The magnitude
and direction of all relationships between
selection procedures and criterion mea-
sures investigated should be reported for
each relevant race, sex, and ethnic group
and for the total group (essential). Where
groups are too small to obtain reliable
evidence of the magnitude of the rela-
tionship, need not be reported separately.
Statements regarding the statistical sig-
nificance of results should be made
(essential). Any statistical adjustments,
such as for less then perfect reliability or
for restriction of score range in the
selection procedure or criterion should be
described and explained; and uncorrected
correlation coefficients should also be
shown (essential). Where the statistical
technique categorizes continuous data,
such as biserial correlation and the phi
coefficient, the categories and the bases
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
38 TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES
on which they were determined should be
described and explained (essential). Stu-
dies of test fairness should be included
where called for by the requirements of
section 14B(8) (essential). These studies
should include the rationale by which a
selection procedure was determined to be
fair to the group(s) in question. Where
test fairness or unfairness has been
demonstrated on the basis of other stu-
dies, a bibliography of the relevant
studies should he included (essential). If
the bibliography includes unpublished
studies, copies of these studies, or ade-
quate abstracts or summaries, should be
attached (essential). Where revisions
have been made in a selection procedure
to assure computability between success-
ful job performance and the probability
of being selected, the studies underlying
such revisions should be included (essen-
tial). All statistical results should be
organized and presented by relevant race,
sex, and ethnic group (essential).
(9) Alternative procedures investigated.
The selection procedures investigated and
available evidence of their impact should
be identified (essential). The scope, meth-
od, and findings of the investigation, and
the conclusions reached in light of the
findings, should be fully described (essen-
tial).
(10) Uses and applications. The meth-
ods considered for use of the selection
procedure (e.g., as a screening device with
a cutoff score, for grouping or ranking, or
combined with other procedures in a
battery) and available evidence of their
impact should be described (essential).
This description should include the ratio-
nale for choosing the method for opera-
tional use, and the evidence of the
validity and utility of the procedure as it
is to be used (essential). The purpose for
which the procedure is to be used (e.g.,
hiring, transfer, promotion) should be
described (essential). If weights are as-
signed to different parts of the selection
procedure, these weights and the validity
of the weighted composite should be
reported (essential). If the selection pro-
cedure is used with a cutoff score, the
user should describe the way in which
normal expectations of proficiency within
the work force were determined and the
way in which the cutoff score was
determined (essential).
(11) Source data. Each user should
maintain records showing all pertinent
information about individual sample
members and raters where they are used,
in studies involving the validation of
selection procedures. These records
should be made available upon request of
a compliance agency. In the case of
individual sample members these data
should include scores on the selection
procedure(s), scores on criterion mea-
sures, age, sex, race, or ethnic group
status, and experience on the specific job
on which the validation study was con-
ducted, and may also include such things
as education, training, and prior job
experience, but should not include names
and social security numbers. Records
should be maintained which show the
ratings given to each sample member by
each rater.
(12) Contact person. The name, mailing
address, and telephone number of the
person who may be contacted for further
information about the validity study
should be provided (essential).
(13) Accuracy and completeness. The
report should describe the steps taken to
assure the accuracy and completeness of
the collection, analysis, and report of data
and results.
C. Content validity studies. Reports of
content validity for a selection procedure
should include the following information:
(1) User(s), location(s) and date(s) of
study. Dates and location(s) of the job
analysis should be shown (essential).
(2) Problem and setting. An explicit
definition of the purpose(s) of the study
and the circumstances in which the study
was conducted should be provided. A
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OFUNIFORMGUIDELINES 39
description of existing selection proce- representative sample of the knowledge,
dures and cutoff scores, if any, should be skill, or ability should be provided (essen-
provided. tial).
(3) Job analysis-Content of the Job. A (5) Relationship between the selection
description of the method used to analyze procedure and the job. The evidence
the job should be provided (essential). demonstrating that the selection proce-
The work behavior(s), the associated dure is a representative work sample, a
tasks, and, if the behavior results in a representative sample of the work behav-
work product, the work products should ior(s), or a representative sample of a
be completely described (essential). Mea- knowledge, skill, or ability as used as a
sures of criticality and/or importance of part of a work behavior and necessary of
the work behavior(s) and the method of that behavior should be provided (essen-
determining these measures should be tial). The user should identify the work
provided (essential). Where the job analy- behavior(s) which each item or part of the
sis also identified the knowledges, skills, selection procedure is intended to sample
and abilities used in work behavior(s), an or measure (essential). Where the selec-
operational definition for each knowledge tion procedure purports to sample a work
in terms of a body of learned information behavior or to provide a sample of a work
and for each skill and ability in terms of product, a comparison should he provided
observable behaviors and outcomes, and of the manner, setting, and the level of
the relationship between each knowledge, complexity of the selection procedure
skill, or ability and each work behavior, as with those of the work situation (essen-
well as the method used to determine this tial). If any steps were taken to reduce
relationship, should be provided (essen- adverse impact on a race, sex, or ethnic
tial). The work situation should be de- group in the content of the procedure or
scribed, including the setting in which in its administration, these steps should
work behavior(s) are performed, and be described. Establishment of time lim-
where appropriate, the manner in which its, if any, and how these limits are
knowledges, skills, or abilities are used, related to the speed with which duties
and the complexity and difficulty of the must be performed on the job, should be
knowledge, skill, or ability as used in the explained. Measures of central tendency
work behavior(s). (e.g., means) and measures of dispersion
(4) Selection procedure and its content. (e.g., standard deviations) and estimates
Selection procedures, including those con- of reliability should be reported for all
structed by or for the user, specific selection procedures if available. Such
training requirements, composites of se- reports should be made for relevant race,
lection procedures, and any other proce- sex, and ethnic subgroups, at least on a
dure supported by content validity, statistically reliable sample basis.
should be completely and explicitly de- (6) Alternative procedures investigated.
scribed or attached (essential). If com- The alternative selection procedures in-
mercially available selection procedures vestigated and available evidence of their
are used, they should be described by impact should be identified (essential).
title, form, and publisher (essential). The The scope, method, and findings of the
behaviors measured or sampled by the investigation, and the conclusions
selection procedure should be explicitly reached in light of the findings, should be
described (essential). Where the selection fully described (essential).
procedure purports to measure a knowl- (7) Uses and applications. The methods
edge, skill, or ability, evidence that the considered for use of the selection proce-
selection procedure measures and is a dure (e.g., as a screening device with a
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
40 TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES
cutoff score, for grouping or ranking, or
combined with other procedures in a
battery) and available evidence of their
impact should be described (essential).
This description should include the ratio-
nale for choosing the method for opera-
tional use, and the evidence of the
validity and utility of the procedure as it
is to he used (essential). The purpose for
which the procedure is to be used (e.g.,
hiring, transfer, promotion) should be
described (essential). If the selection
procedure is used with a cutoff score, the
user should describe the way in which
normal expectations of proficiency within
the work force were determined and the
way in which the cutoff score was
determined (essential). In addition, if the
selection procedure is to he used for
ranking, the user should specify the
evidence showing that a higher score on
the selection procedure is likely to result
in better job performance.
(8) Contact person. The name, mailing
:address, and telephone number of the
person who may be contacted for further
information about the validity study
should he provided (essential).
(9) Accuracu and completeness. The
report should describe the steps taken to
assure the accuracy and completeness of
the collection, analysis, and report of data
and results.
D. f `on,struct validity studies. Reports
of construct validity for a selection
procedure should include the following
information:
(1) User(s), location(s), and date(s) of
xtudy- Date(s) and location(s) of the job
analysis and the gathering of other
evidence called for by these guidelines
should he provided (essential).
(2) Problem and setting. An explicit
definition of the purpose(s) of the study
and the circumstances in which the study
was conducted should he provided. A
descrintion of existing selection proce-
alures and cutoff scores, if any, should be
provided.
(3) Construct definition. A clear defini-
tion of the construct(s) which are believed
to underlie successful performance of the
critical or important work behavior(s)
should be provided (essential). This defi-
nition should include the levels of con-
struct performance relevant to the job(s)
for which the selection procedure is to be
used (essential). There should be a sum-
mary of the position of the construct in
the psychological literature, or in the
absence of such a position, a description
of the way in which the definition and
measurement of the construct was devel-
oped and the psychological theory under-
lying it (essential). Any quantitative data
which identify or define the job con-
structs, such as factor analyses, should be
provided (essential).
(4) Job analysis. A description of the
method used to analyze the job should be
provided (essential). A complete descrip-
tion of the work behavior(s) and, to the
extent appropriate, work outcomes and
measures of their criticality and/or im-
portance should be provided (essential).
The report should also describe the basis
on which the behavior(s) or outcomes
were determined to be important, such as
their level of difficulty, their frequency
of performance, the consequences of
error or other appropriate factors (essen-
tial). Where jobs are grouped or com-
pared for the purposes of generalizing
validity evidence, the work behavior(s)
and work product(s) for each of the jobs
should be described, and conclusions
concerning the similarity of the jobs in
terms of observable work behaviors or
work products should be made (essential).
(5) Job titles and codes. It is desirable to
provide the selectionprocedureuser's job
title(s) for the job(s) in question and the
corresponding job title(s) and code(s)
from the United States Employment
Service's dictionary of occupational titles.
(6) Selection procedure. The selection
procedure used as a measure of the
construct should be completely and ex-
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458ROO0100110002-8
TEXT OF U NIFORM GUIDELINES 41
plicitly described or attached (essential).
If commercially available selection proce-
dures are used, they should be identified
by title, form and publisher (essential).
The research evidence of the relationship
between the selection procedure and the
construct, such as factor structure, should
be included (essential). Measures of cen-
tral tendency, variability and reliability
of the selection procedure should be
provided (essential). Whenever feasible,
these measures should be provided sepa-
rately for each relevant race, sex and
ethnic group.
(7) Relationship to job performance. The
criterion-related study(ies) and other em-
pirical evidence of the relationship be-
tween the construct measured by the
selection procedure and the related work
behavior(s) for the job or jobs in question
should be provided (essential). Documen-
tation of the criterion-related study(ies)
should satisfy the provisions of section
15B above or section 15E(1) below, except
for studies conducted prior to the effec-
tive date of these guidelines (essential).
Where a study pertains to a group of
jobs, and, on the basis of the study,
validity is asserted for a job in the group,
the observed work behaviors and the
observed work products for each of the
jobs should be described (essential). Any
other evidence used in determining
whether the work behavior(s) in each of
the jobs is the same should be fully
described (essential).
(8) Alternative procedures investigated.
The alternative selection procedures in-
vestigated and available evidence of their
impact should be identified (essential).
The scope, method, and findings of the
investigation, and the conclusions
reached in light of the findings should be
fully described (essential).
(9) Uses and applications. The methods
considered for use of the selection proce-
dure (e.g., as a screening device with a
cutoff score, for grouping or ranking, or
combined with other procedures in a
battery) and available evidence of their
impact should be described (essential).
This description should include the ratio-
nale for choosing the method for opera-
tional use, and the evidence of the
validity and utility of the procedure as it
is to be used (essential). The purpose for
which the procedure is to be used (e.g.,
hiring, transfer, promotion) should be
described (essential). If weights are as-
signed to different parts of the selection
procedure, these weights and the validity
of the weighted composite should be
reported (essential). If the selection pro-
cedure is used with a cutoff score, the
user should describe the way in which
normal expectations of proficiency within
the work force were determined and the
way in which the cutoff score was
determined (essential).
(10) Accuracy and completeness. The
report should describe the steps taken to
assure the accuracy and completeness of
the collection, analysis, and report of data
and results.
(11) Source data. Each user should
maintain records showing all pertinent
information relating to its study of
construct validity.
(12) Contact person. The name, mailing
address, and telephone number of the
individual who may be contacted for
further information about the validity
study should be provided (essential).
E. Evidence of validity from other
studies. When validity of a selection
procedure is supported by studies not
done by the user, the evidence from the
original study or studies should be com-
piled in a manner similar to that required
in the appropriate section of this section
15 above. In addition, the following
evidence should be supplied:
(1) Evidence from criterion-related va-
lidity studies.-a. Job information. A
description of the important job behav-
ior(s) of the user's job and the basis on
which the behaviors were determined to
be important should be provided (essen-
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458ROO0100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
tial). A full description of the basis for
determining that these important work
behaviors are the same as those of the job
in the original study (or studies) should be
provided (essential).
b. Relevance of criteria. A full descrip-
tion of the basis on which the criteria
used in the original studies are deter-
mined to be relevant for the user should
be provided (essential).
c. other variables. The similarity of
important applicant pool or sample char-
acteristics reported in the original studies
to those of the user should be described
(essential). A description of the compari-
son between the race, sex and ethnic
composition of the user's relevant labor
market and the sample in the original
validity studies should be provided (essen-
tial).
d. Use of the selection procedure. A full
description should be provided showing
that the use to be made of the selection
procedure is consistent with the findings
of the original validity studies (essential).
e. Bibliography. A bibliography of
reports of validity of the selection proce-
dure for the job or jobs in question should
be provided (essential). Where any of the
~studh s included an investigation of test
fairness, the results of this investigation
should be provided (essential). Copies of
reports published in journals that are not
commonly available should be described
in detail or attached (essential). Where a
user is relying upon unpublished studies,
a reasonable effort should be made to
obtain these studies. If these unpublished
studies are the sole source of validity
evidence they should be described in
detail or attached (essential). If these
studies are not available, the name and
address of the source, an adequate ab-
stract or summary of the validity study
and data, and a contact person in the
source organization should be provided
(essential).
(2) Evidence from content validity
studies. See section 14C(3) and section
15C above.
(3) Evidence from construct validity
studies. See sections 14D(2) and 15D
above.
F. Evidence of validity from cooperative
studies. Where a selection procedure has
been validated through a cooperative
study, evidence that the study satisfies
the requirements of sections 7, 8 and 15E
should be provided (essential).
G. Selection for higher level job. If a
selection procedure is used to evaluate
candidates for jobs at a higher level than
those for which they will initially be
employed, the validity evidence should
satisfy the documentation provisions of
this section 15 for the higher level job or
jobs, and in addition, the user should
provide: (1) a description of the job
progression structure, formal or infor-
mal; (2) the data showing how many
employees progress to the higher level job
and the length of time needed to make
this progression; and (3) an identification
of any anticipated changes in the higher
level job. In addition, if the test measures
a knowledge, skill or ability, the user
should provide evidence that the knowl-
edge, skill or ability is required for the
higher level job and the basis for the
conclusion that the knowledge, skill or
ability is not expected to develop from
the training or experience on the job.
H. Interim use of selection procedures.
If a selection procedure is being used on
an interim basis because the procedure is
not fully supported by the required
evidence of validity, the user should
maintain and have available (1) substan-
tial evidence of validity for the proce-
dure, and (2) a report showing the date on
which the study to gather the additional
evidence commenced, the estimated com-
pletion date of the study, and a descrip-
tion of the data to be collected (essential).
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES
Definitions and any Federal contractor or subcon-
Sec. 16. Definitions. The following tractor or federally assisted construction
definitions shall apply throughout these contractor or subcontactor covered by
guidelines: Executive Order 11246, as amended.
A. Ability. A present competence to H. Employment agency. Any employ-
perform an observable behavior or a ment agency subject to the provisions of
behavior which results in an observable the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
product. I. Enforcement action. For the purposes
B. Adverse impact. A substantially of section 4 a proceeding by a Federal
different rate of selection in hiring, enforcement agency such as a lawsuit or
promotion, or other employment decision an administrative proceeding leading to
which works to the disadvantage of debarment from or withholding, suspen-
members of a race, sex, or ethnic group. sion, or termination of Federal Govern-
See section 4 of these guidelines. ment contracts or the suspension or
C. Compliance with these guidelines. withholding of Federal Government
Use of a selection procedure is-in compli- funds; but not a finding of reasonable
ance with these guidelines if such use has cause or a conciliation process or the
been validated in accord with these issuance of right to sue letters under title
guidelines (as defined below), or if such VII or under Executive Order 11246
use does not result in adverse impact on where such finding, conciliation, or is-
any race, sex, or ethnic group (see section suance of notice of right to sue is based
4, above), or, in unusual circumstances, if upon an individual complaint.
use of the procedure is otherwise justified J. Enforcement agency. Any agency of
in accord with Federal law. See section the executive branch of the Federal
6B, above. Government which adopts these guide-
D. Content validity. Demonstrated by lines for purposes of the enforcement of
data showing that the content of a the equal employment opportunity laws
selection procedure is representative of or which has responsibility for securing
important aspects of performance on the compliance with them.
job. See section 5B and section 14C. K. Job analysis. A detailed statement
E. Construct validity. Demonstrated by of work behaviors and other information
data showing that the selection procedure relevant to the job.
measures the degree to which candidates L. Job description. A general statement
have identifiable characteristics which of job duties and responsibilities.
have been determined to be important for M. Knowledge. A body of information
successful job performance. See section applied directly to the performance of a
5B and section 14D. function.
F. Criterion-related validity. Demon- N. Labor organization. Any labor orga-
strated by empirical data showing that nization subject to the provisions of the
the selection procedure is predictive of or Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and
significantly correlated with important any committee subject thereto control-
elements of work behavior. See sections ling apprenticeship or other training.
5B and 14B. 0. Observable. Able to be seen, heard,
G. Employer. Any employer subject to or otherwise perceived by a person other
the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of than the person performing the action.
1964, as amended, including State or local P. Race, sex, or ethnic group. Any group
governments and any Federal agency of persons identifiable on the grounds of
subject to the provisions of section 717 of race, color, religion, sex, or national
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, origin.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
44 TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES
Q. Selection, procedures. Any measure, dure than members of another group, and
combination of measures, or procedure the differences are not reflected in differ-
used as a basis for any employment ences in measures of job performance.
decision. Selection procedures include the See section 14B(7).
full range of assessment techniques from W. User. Any employer, labor organi-
traditional paper and pencil tests, perfor- zation, employment agency, or licensing
mince tests, training programs, or proba- or certification board, to the extent it
tionary periods and physical, educational, may be covered by Federal equal employ-
and work experience requirements ment opportunity law, which uses a
through informal or casual interviews selection procedure as a basis for any
and unscored application forms. employment decision. Whenever an em-
14. Selection rate. The proportion of ployer, labor organization, or employ-
applicants or candidates who are hired, ment agency is required by law to restrict
promoted, or otherwise selected. recruitment for any occupation to those
S. Should. The term "should" as used in applicants who have met licensing or
these guidelines is intended to connote certification requirements, the licensing
action which is necessary to achieve or certifying authority to the extent it
compliance with the guidelines, while
recognizing that there are circumstances may be covered by Federal equal employ-
whorezih ve course- action are ment opportunity law will be considered
open users. the user with respect to those licensing or
T. to to us. A present, observable comps- certification requirements. Whenever a Skill tuna: to perform a learned observable
moter State employment agency or service does
act. no more than administer or monitor a
t'. Technical feasibility. The existence procedure as permitted by Department of
of conditions permitting the conduct of Labor regulations, and does so without
meaningful criterion-related validity stu- making referrals or taking any other
dies. These conditions include: (1) An action on the basis of the results, the
adequate sample of persons available for State employment agency will not be
the study to achieve findings of statistical deemed to be a user.
significance; (2) having or being able to X. Validated in accord with these
obtain a sufficient range of scores on the guidelines or properly validated. A dem-
selection procedure and job performance onstration that one or more validity study
measures to produce validity results or studies meeting the standards of these
which can he expected to he representa- guidelines has been conducted, including
tive of the results if the ranges normally investigation and, where appropriate, use
expected were utilized; and (3) having or of suitable alternative selection proce-
being able to devise unbiased, reliable dures as contemplated by section 3B, and
and relevant measures of job perfor- has produced evidence of validity suffi-
mance or other criteria of employee cient to warrant use of the procedure for
adequacy. See section 14B(2). With re- the intended purpose under the standards
spect to investigation of possible unfair- of these guidelines.
ness, the same considerations are applica- Y. Work behavior. An activity per-
ble to each group for which the study is formed to achieve the objectives of the
made. See section 14B(S). job. Work behaviors involve observable
V. Unfairness of selection procedure. A (physical) components and unobservable
condition in which members of one race, (mental) components. A work behavior
sex, or ethnic group characteristically consists of the performance of one or
obtain lower scores on a selection proce- more tasks. Knowledpes, skills, and abili-
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES 45
ties are not behaviors, although they may ble to qualified persons, without regard
be applied in work behaviors. to their sex, racial, or ethnic characteris-
Appendix tics. Without such efforts equal employ-
ment opportunity is no more than a wish.
17. Policy statement on affirmative The importance of voluntary affirmative
action (see section 13B). The Equal Em- action on the part of employers is under-
ployment Opportunity Coordinating scored by title VII of the Civil Rights Act
Council was established by act of Con- of 1964, Executive Order 11246, and
gress in 1972, and charged with responsi- related laws and regulations-all of
bility for developing and implementing which emphasize voluntary action to
agreements and policies designed, among achieve equal employment opportunity.
other things, to eliminate conflict and As with most management objectives,
inconsistency among the agencies of the a systematic plan based on sound organi-
Federal Government responsible for ad- zational analysis and problem identifica-
ministering Federal law prohibiting dis- tion is crucial to the accomplishment of
crimination on grounds of race, color, sex, affirmative action objectives. For this
religion, and national origin. This state- reason, the Council urges all State and
ment is issued as an initial response to the local governments to develop and imple-
requests of a number of State and local ment results oriented affirmative action
officials for clarification of the Govern- plans which deal with the problems so
ment's policies concerning the role of identified.
affirmative action in the overall equal The following paragraphs are intended
employment opportunity program. While to assist State and local governments by
the Coordinating Council's adoption of illustrating the kinds of analyses and
this statement expresses only the views iate for r a
of the signatory agencies concerning this activities tubc employer's which
affirmative
important subject, the principles set forth p mayy b be e o prppanpr y iate below should serve as policy guidance for action plan. This statement does not
other Federal agencies as well. address remedies imposed after a finding
(1) Equal employment opportunity is of unlawful discrimination
the law of the land. In the public sector of (2) Voluntary affirmative action to
our society this means,that all persons, assure equal employment opportunity is
regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or appropriate at any stage of the employ-
national origin shall have equal access to ment process. The first step in the
positions in the public service limited only construction of any affirmative action
by their ability to do the job. There is plan should be an analysis of the employ-
ample evidence in all sectors of our er's work force to determine whether
society that such equal access frequently percentages of sex, race, or ethnic groups
has been denied to members of certain in individual job classifications are sub-
groups because of their sex, racial, or stantially similar to the percentages of
ethnic characteristics. The remedy for those groups available in the relevant job
such past and present discrimination is market who possess the basic job-related
twofold. qualifications.
On the one hand, vigorous enforcement When substantial disparities are found
of the laws against discrimination is through such analyses, each element of
essential. But equally, and perhaps even the overall selection process should be
more important are affirmative, volun- examined to determine which elements
tary efforts on the part of public employ- operate to exclude persons on the basis of
ers to assure that positions in the public sex, race, or ethnic group. Such elements
service are genuinely and equally accessi- include, but are not limited to, recruit-
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
46 TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES
ment, testing, ranking certification, in- gram, and procedures for making timely
terview, recommendations for selection, adjustments in this program where effec-
hiring, promotion, etc. The examination tiveness is not demonstrated.
of each element of the selection process (4) The goal of any affirmative action
should at a minimum include a determi- plan should be achievement of genuine
nation of its validity in predicting job equal employment opportunity for all
performance. qualified persons. Selection under such
(3) When an employer has reason to plans should be based upon the ability of
believe that its selection procedures have the applicant(s) to do the work. Such
the exclusionary effect described in para- plans should not require the selection of
graph 2 above, it should initiate affirma- the unqualified, or the unneeded, nor
tive steps to remedy the situation. Such should they require the selection of
steps, which in design and execution may persons on the basis of race, color, sex,
be race, color, sex, or ethnic "conscious," religion, or national origin. Morever,
include, but are not limited to, the while the Council believes that this
following: statement should serve to assist State
'(a) The establishment of a long-term and local employers, as well as Federal
goal, and short-range, interim goals and agencies, it recognizes that affirmative
timetables for the specific job classifica- action cannot be viewed as a standardized
tions, all of which should take into program which must he accomplished in
account the availability of basically quali- the same way at all times in all places.
Pied persons in the relevant job market; Accordingly, the Council has not at-
(b) A recruitment program designed to tempted to set forth here either the
attract qualified members of the group in minimum or maximum voluntary steps
question; that employers may take to deal with
(c) A systematic effort to organize their respective situations. Rather, the
work and redesign jobs in ways that Council recognizes that under applicable
provide opportunities for persons lacking authorities, State and local employers
"journeyman" level knowledge or skills have flexibility to formulate affirmative
to enter and, with appropriate training, action plans that are best suited to their
to progress in a career field; particular situations. In this manner, the
(d) Revamping selection instruments or Council believes that affirmative action
procedures which have not vet been programs will best serve the goal of equal
validated in order to reduce or eliminate employment opportunity.
exclusionary effects on particular groups Because of its equal employment op-
in particular job classifications; portunity responsibilities under the State
(e) The initiation of measures designed and Local Government. Fiscal Assistance
to assure that members of the affected Act of 1972 (the revenue sharing act), the
group who are qualified to perform the Department of Treasury was invited to
job are included within the pool of participate in the formulation of this
persons from which the selecting official policy statement; and its concurs and
makes the selection; joins in the adoption of this policy
(f) A systematic effort to provide statement.
career advancement training, both class- Done this 26th day of August 1976.
room and on-the-job, to employees locked Section 18. Citations. The official title
into dead end jobs; and of these guidelines is "Uniform Guide-
(g) The establishment of a system for lines on Employee Selection Procedures
regularly monitoring the effectiveness of (1978)". The Uniform Guidelines on Em-
the particular affirmative action pro- ployee Selection Procedures (1978) are
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
TEXT OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES 47
intended to establish a uniform Federal
position in the area of prohibiting dis-
crimination in employment practices on
grounds of race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin. These guidelines have
been adopted by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, the Depart-
ment of Labor, the Department of Jus-
tice, and the Civil Service Commission.
The official citation is:
"Section , Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedure (1978); 43
FR , (August 25,1978)."
The short form citation is:
"Section , U.G.E.S.P. (1975); 43
FR (August 25,1978)."
When the guidelines are cited in con-
nection with the activities of one of the
issuing agencies, a specific citation to the
regulations of that agency can be added
at the end of the above citation. The
specific additional citations are as fol-
lows:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion
29 CFR Part 1607
Department of Labor
Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs
41 CFR Part 60-3
Department of Justice
28 CFR 50.14
Civil Service Commission
5 CFR 300.103(c)
Normally when citing these guidelines,
the section number immediately preced-
ing the title of the guidelines will be from
these guidelines series 1-18. If a section
number from the codification for an
individual agency is needed it can also be
added at the end of the agency citation.
For example, section 6A of these guide-
lines could be cited for EEOC as follows:
"Section 6A, Uniform Guidelines on Em-
ployee Selection Procedures (1978); 43 FR
(August 25, 1978); 29 CFR Part
1607, section 6A."
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
Questions & Answers
on the
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures
CHAPTER XIV-EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
PART 1607-UNIFORM GUIDELINES
ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PRO-
CEDURES (1978)
Title 5-Administrative Personnel
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
PART 300-EMPLOYMENT
(GENERAL)
Title 28-Judicial Administration
CHAPTER 1-DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
PART 50-STATEMENTS OF POLI-
CY
Title 31-Money and Finance:
Treasury
CHAPTER 1-MONETARY OFFICES:
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
PART 51-FISCAL ASSISTANCE TO
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERN-
MENTS
Clarify and Provide a Common Inter-
pretation of the Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures
AGENCIES: Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission, Office of Personnel
Management, Department of Justice.
Department of Labor and Department of
Treasury.
ACTION: Adoption of questions and
answers designed to clarify and provide a
common interpretation of the Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection Proce-
dures.
SUMMARY: The Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures were is-
sued by the five Federal agencies having
primary responsibility for the enforce-
ment of Federal equal employment op-
portunity laws, to establish a uniform
Federal government position. See 43 FR
38290, et seq. (Aug. 25, 1978) and 43 FR
40223 (Sept. 11, 1978). They became
effective on September 25, 1978. The
issuing agencies recognize the need for a
common interpretation of the Uniform
Guidelines, as well as the desirability of
providing additional guidance to employ-
ers and other users, psychologists, and
investigators, compliance officers and
th
F
d
er
e
eral enforcement personnel.
Title 41-Public Contracts and o
Property Management These Questions and Answers are intend-
Property ed to address that need and to provide
CHAPTER 60-OFFICE OF FEDERAL such guidance.
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PRO- EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 1979.
GRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
PART 60-UNIFORM GUIDELINES TACT:
ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PRO- A. Diane Graham, Assistant Director,
CEDURES (1978) Affirmative Employment Pro ams, Of-
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-0 1458R00i 100110002-8
Title 29-Labor Adoption of Questions and Answers To
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 49
fice of Personnel Management, 1900 E
Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20415,
202-632-4420.
James Hellings, Special Assistant to the
Assistant Director, Intergovernmental
Personnel Programs, Office of Personnel
Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20415,20Z.632-6248.
Kenneth A. Millard, Chief, State and
Local Section, Personnel Research and
Development Center, Office of Personnel
Management, 1900 E St., NW., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20415,202-632,6238.
Peter C. Robertson, Director, Office of
Policy Implementation, Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission, 2401 E
Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20506,
202-634-7060.
David L. Rose, Chief, Employment Sec-
tion, Civil Rights Division, Department of
Justice, 10th Street and Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20530,
202-633-3831.
Donald J. Schwartz, Psychologist, Office
of Federal Contract Compliance Pro-
grams, Room C-3324, Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20210,202-523-9426.
Herman Schwartz, Chief Counsel, Office
of Revenue Sharing, Department of the
Treasury, 2401 E Street, NW., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20220,202,634-5182.
James 0. Taylor, Jr., Research Psycholo-
gist, Office of Systemic Programs, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission,
2401 E St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20506,
202-254-3036.
Introduction
The problems addressed by the Uni-
form Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures (43 FR 38290 et seq., August
25, 1978) are numerous and important,
and some of them are complex. The
history of the development of those
Guidelines is set forth in the introduction
to them (43 FR 38290-95). The experience
of the agencies has been that a series of
answers to commonly asked questions is
helpful in providing guidance not only to
employers and other users, but also to
psychologists and others who are called
upon to conduct validity studies, and to
investigators, compliance officers and
other Federal personnel who have en-
forcement responsibilities.
The Federal agencies which issued the
Uniform Guidelines-the Departments of
Justice and Labor, the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission, the Civil
Service Commission (which has been
succeeded in relevant part by the Office
of Personnel Management), and the Of-
fice of Revenue Sharing, Treasury De-
partment-recognize that the goal of a
uniform position on these issues can best
be achieved through a common interpre-
tation of the same guidelines. The follow-
ing Questions and Answers are part of
such a common interpretation. The mate-
rial included is intended to interpret and
clarify, but not to modify, the provisions
of the Uniform Guidelines. The questions
selected are commonly asked questions in
the field and those suggested by the
Uniform Guidelines themselves and by
the extensive comments received on the
various sets of proposed guidelines prior
to their adoption. Terms are used in the
questions and answers as they are de-
fined in the Uniform Guidelines.
The agencies recognize that additional
questions may be appropriate for similar
treatment at a later date, and contemp-
late working together to provide addi-
tional guidance in interpreting the Uni-
form Guidelines. Users and other inter-
ested persons are invited to submit addi-
tional questions.
Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chair, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
Alan K. Campbell,
Director, Office of
Personnel Management.
Drew S. Days III,
Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
50 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDEI,INF.S
Vs olden Rougeau,
I)irert,,r. Office of Federal A. The Guidelines apply to private and
r , t-r~ rt, Compliance, public employers, labor organizations,
L'"partment of labor. employment agencies, apprenticeship
Kent A. Peterson,
Ari' ug Deputy t)irector, committees, licensing and certification
fOfficv of Revenue sharing. boards (see Question 7), and contractors
1. Purpose and Scope or subcontractors, who are covered by one
1. Q. What is the purpose of the or more of the following provisions of
Guidelines? Federal equal employment opportunity
A. The guidelines are designed to aid in law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
the achievement of our nation's goal of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employ-
equal employment opportunity without ment Opportunity Act of 1972 (hereinaf-
discrimination on the grounds of race, ter Title VII); Executive Order 11246, as
color, sex, religion or national origin. The amended by Executive Orders 11375 and
Federal agencies have adopted the Guide- 12086 (hereinafter Executive Order
lines to provide a uniform set of princi- 11246); the State and Local Fiscal Assis-
ples governing use of employee selection tance Act of 1972, as amended; Omnibus
procedures which is consistent with appli- Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
cable legal standards and validation stan-
dards generally accepted by the psycho- 1 en as amended; and the I, as amen d-
logica.l profession and which the Govern-
ment will apply in the discharge of its ed. Thus, under Title VII, the Guidelines
es
responsibilities. apply to the Federal Government with
2. Q. What is the basic principle of the regard to Federal employment. Through
Guidelines? Title VII they apply to most private
A. A selection process which has an employers who have 15 or more employ-
adverse impact on the employment oppor- ees for 20 weeks or more a calendar year,
tunities of members of a race, color, and to most employment agencies, labor
religion, sex, or national origin group organizations and apprenticeship commit-
(referred to as "race, sex, and ethnic tees. They apply to state and local
group," as defined in Section 16P) and governments which employ 15 or more
thus disproportionately screens them out employees, or which receive revenue
is unlawfully discriminatory unless the sharing funds, or which receive funds
process or its component procedures have from the Law Enforcement Assistance
been validated in accord with the Guide- Administration to impose and strengthen
lines, or the user otherwise justifies them law enforcement and criminal justice, or
in accord with Federal law. See Sections 3
and 6.1 This principle was adopted by the which receive grants or other federal
Supreme Court unanimously in Griggs v. assistance under a program which re-
Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 3 FEP quires maintenance of personnel stan-
Cases 175, and was ratified and endorsed dards on a merit basis. They apply
by the Congress when it passed the Equal through Executive Order 11246 to con-
Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, tractors and subcontractors of the Feder-
which amended Title VII of the civil al Government and to contractors and
Rights Act of 1964. subcontractors under federally-assisted
3. Q. Who is covered by the Guidelines? construction contracts.
' SN,tion references throughout these questions and lion, the Department of Labor, and the Department of
answers are to the sections of the Uniform Guidelines on Justice on Aug. 25, 1978, 43 FR 38290. The Uniform
Enmpla?fee Selection Procedures (herein referred to as Guidelines were adopted by the office of Revenue
"Guidelines") that were published by the Equal Employ- Sharing of the Department of Treasury on September 11,
ment opportunity Commission, the Civil Service Commis- 1478.43 FR 40229.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 51
4. Q. Are college placement offices and
similar organizations considered to be
users subject to the Guidelines?
A. Placement offices may or may not
be subject to the Guidelines depending on
what services they offer. If a placement
office uses a selection procedure as a
basis for any employment decision, it is
covered under the definition of "user".
Section 16. For example, if a placement
office selects some students for referral
to an employer but rejects others, it is
covered. However, if the placement office
refers all interested students to an em-
ployer, it is not covered, even though it
may offer office space and provision for
informing the students of job openings.
The Guidelines are intended to cover all
users of employee selection procedures,
including employment agencies, who are
subject to Federal equal employment
opportunity law.
5. Q. Do the Guidelines apply only to
written tests?
A. No. They apply to all selection
procedures used to make employment
decisions, including interviews, review of
experience or education from application
forms, work samples, physical require-
ments, and evaluations of performance.
Sections 2B and 16Q, and see Question 6.
6. Q. What practices are covered by the
Guidelines?
A. The Guidelines apply to employee
selection procedures which are used in
making employment decisions, such as
hiring, retention, promotion, transfer,
demotion, dismissal or referral. Section
2B. Employee selection procedures in-
clude job requirements (physical, educa-
tion, experience), and evaluation of appli-
cants or candidates on the basis of
application forms, interviews, perfor-
mance tests, paper and pencil tests,
performance in training programs or
probationary periods, and any other pro-
cedures used to make an employment
decision whether administered by the
employer or by an employment agency.
See Section 2B.
7. Q. Do the Guidelines apply to the
licensing and certification functions of
state and local governments?
A. The Guidelines apply to such func-
tions to the extent that they are covered
by Federal law. Section 2B. The courts
are divided on the issue of such coverage.
The Government has taken the position
that at least some kinds of licensing and
certification which deny persons access to
employment opportunity may be enjoined
in an action brought pursuant to Section
707 of the Civil Rights Act of __1964, as
amended.
8. Q. What is the relationship between
Federal equal employment opportunity
law, embodied in these Guidelines, and
State and Local government merit sys-
tem laws or regulations requiring rank
ordering of candidates and selection
from a limited number of the top candi-
dates?
A. The Guidelines permit ranking
where the evidence of validity is suffi-
cient to support that method of use. State
or local laws which compel rank ordering
generally do so on the assumption that
the selection procedure is valid. Thus, if
there is adverse impact and the validity
evidence does not adequately support
that method of use, proper interpretation
of such a state law would require valida-
tion prior to ranking. Accordingly, there
is no necessary or inherent conflict be-
tween Federal law and State or local laws
of the kind described.
Under the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution (Art. VI, C1. 2), however,
Federal law or valid regulation overrides
any contrary provision of state or local
law. Thus, if there is any conflict, Federal
equal opportunity law prevails. For ex-
ample, in Rosenfeld v. So. Pacific Co., 444
F. 2d 1219 (9th Cir., 1971), 3 FEP Cases
604,the court held invalid state protective
laws which prohibited the employment of
women in jobs entailing long hours or
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
52 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES
heavy labor because the state laws were For example, if the hiring rate for
in conflict with Title VII. Where a State whites other than Hispanics is 60%, for
or local official believes that there is a American Indians 45%, for Hispanics 48%,
possible conflict, the official may wish to and for Blacks 51%, and each of these
consult with the State Attorney General, groups constitutes more than 2% of the
County or City attorney, or other legal labor force in the relevant labor area (see
official to determine how to comply with Question 16), a comparison should be
the law. made of the selection rate for each group
II. Adverse Impact, the Bottom Line with that of the highest group (whites).
and Affirmative Action These comparisons show the following
impact ratios: American Indians 45/60 or
9. Q. Do the Guidelines require that 75%; Hispanics 48/60 or 80%; and Blacks
only validated selection procedures be 51/60 or 85%. Applying the 4/5ths or 80%
used? rule of thumb, on the basis of the above
A. No. Although validation of selection information alone, adverse impact is
procedures is desirable in personnel man- indicated for American Indians but not
agement, the Uniform Guidelines require for Hispanics or Blacks.
users to produce evidence of validity only 12. Q How is adverse impact deter-
when the selection procedure adversely mined?
affects the opportunities of a race, sex, or A. Adverse impact is determined by a
ethnic group for hire, transfer, promo- four step process.
tion, retention or other employment (1) calculate the rate of selection for
decision. If there is no adverse impact, each group (divide the number of persons
there is no validation requirement under selected from a group by the number of
the Guidelines. Sections 1B and 3A. See applicants from the group).
also, Section 6A. (2) observe which group has the highest
10. Q What is adverse impact? selection rate.
A. Under the Guidelines adverse im- (3) calculate the impact ratios, by
pact is a substantially different rate of comparing the selection rate for each
selection in hiring, promotion or other group with that of the highest group
employment decision which works to the (divide the selection rate for a group by
disadvantage of members of a race, sex the selection rate for the highest group).
or ethnic group. Sections 4D and 16B. See (4) observe whether the selection rate
Questions 11 and 12. for any group is substantially less (i.e.,
11. Q. What is a substantially different usually less than 4/5ths or 80%) than the
rate of selection? selection rate for the highest group. If it
A. The agencies have adopted a rule of indicated in most thumb under which they will generally cirumstan See impact Section 4 4D. consider a selection rate for any race, sex, circumstances.
D.
example:
or ethnic group which is less than four- For fifths (4/5ths) or eighty percent (80%) of selection
the selection rate for the group with the Applicants Hires ratehP~ nt
highest selection rate as a substantially
different rate of selection. See Section 80 White .......................... 42 48/80 or 60%
40 Black .......................... 12 12/40 or 30%
4D. This "4/5ths" or "80%" rule of thumb
is not intended as a legal definition, but is A comparison of the black selection
a practical means of keeping the atten- rate (30%) with the white selection rate
tion of the enforcement agencies on (60%) shows that the black rate is 30/60,
serious discrepancies in rates of hiring, or one-half (or 50%) of the white rate.
promotion and other selection decisions. Since the one-half (50%) is less than
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 53
4/5ths (80%) adverse impact is usually
indicated.
The determination of adverse impact is
not purely arithmetic however; and other
factors may be relevant. See, Section 4D.
13. Q. Is adverse impact determined on
the basis of the overall selection process
or for the components in that process?
A. Adverse impact is determined first
for the overall selection process for each
job. If the overall selection process has an
adverse impact, the adverse impact of the
individual selection procedure should be
analyzed. For any selection procedures in
the process having an adverse impact
which the user continues to use in the
same manner, the user is expected to
have evidence of validity satisfying the
Guidelines. Sections 4C and 5D. If there is
no adverse impact for the overall selec-
tion process, in most circumstances there
is no obligation under the Guidelines to
investigate adverse impact for the com-
ponents, or to validate the selection
procedures used for that job. Section 4C.
But see Question 25.
14. Q. The Guidelines designated the
"total selection process" as the initial
basis for determining the impact of
selection procedures. What is meant by
the "total selection process"?
A. The "total selection process" refers
to the combined effect of all selection
procedures leading to the final employ-
ment decision such as hiring or promot-
ing. For example, appraisal of candidates
for administrative assistant positions in
an organization might include initial
screening based upon an application
blank and interview, a written test, a
medical examination, a background
check, and a supervisor's interview. These
in combination are the total selection
process. Additionally, where there is more
than one route to the particular kind of
employment decision, the total selection
process encompasses the combined results
of all routes. For example, an employer
may select some applicants for a particu-
lar kind of job through the appropriate
written and performance tests. Others
may be selected through an internal
upward mobility program, on the basis of
successful performance in a directly
related trainee type of position. In such a
case, the impact of the total selection
process would be the combined effect of
both avenues of entry.
15. Q. What is meant by the terms
"applicant" and "candidate" as they are
used in the Uniform Guidelines?
A. The precise definition of the term
"applicant" depends upon the user's re-
cruitment and selection procedures. The
concept of an applicant is that of a person
who has indicated an interest in being
considered for hiring, promotion, or other
employment opportunities. This interest
might be expressed by completing an
application form, or might be expressed
orally, depending upon the employer's
practice.
The term "candidate" has been includ-
ed to cover those situations where the
initial step by the user involves consider-
ation of current employees for promotion,
or training, or other employment oppor-
tunities, without inviting applications.
The procedure by which persons are
identified as candidates is itself a selec-
tion procedure under the Guidelines.
A person who voluntarily withdraws
formally or informally at any stage of the
selection process is no longer an applicant
or candidate for purposes of computing
adverse impact. Employment standards
imposed by the user which discourage
disproportionately applicants of a race,
sex or ethnic group may, however, re-
quire justification. Records should be
kept for persons who were applicants or
candidates at any stage of the process.
16. Q. Should adverse impact determi-
nations be made for all groups regardless
of their size?
A. No. Section 15A(2) calls for annual
adverse impact determinations to be
made for each group which constitutes
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458ROO0100110002-8
54 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIIWF[,INES
either 2% or more of the total labor force except where large numbers of selections
in the relevant labor area, or 2% or more are made. See Questions 20 and 22.
of the applicable work force. Thus, im- 19. Q Does the 4/5ths rule of thumb
pact determinations should be made for mean that the Guidelines will tolerate up
any employment decision for each group to 20% discrimination?
which constitutes 2% or more of the labor A. No. The 4/5ths rule of thumb speaks
force in the relevant labor area. For only to the question of adverse impact,
hiring, such determination should also be and is not intended to resolve the ulti-
made for groups which constitute more mate question of unlawful discrimina-
than 2% of the applicants; and for tion. Regardless of the amount, of differ-
promotions, determinations should also ence in selection rates.. unlawful discrimi-
be made for those groups which consti- nation may be present, and may be
tute at least 2% of the user's workforce. demonstrated through appropriate evi-
There are record keeping obligations for dence. The 4/5ths rule merely establishes
all groups, even those which are less than a numerical basis for drawing an initial
2%. See Question 86. inference and for requiring additional
17. Q. In determining adverse impact, information.
do you compare the selection rates for With respect to adverse impact, the
males and females, and blacks and Guidelines expressly state (section 4D)
whites, or do you compare selection rates that differences in selection rates of less
for white males, white females, black than 20% may still amount to adverse
males and black females? impact where the differences are signifi-
A. The selection rates for males and cant in both statistical and practical
females are compared, and the selection terms. See Question 20. In the absence of
rates for the race and ethnic groups are differences which are large enough to
compared with the selection rate of the meet the 4/5ths rule of thumb or a test of
race or ethnic group with the highest statistical significance, there is no reason
selection rate. Neutral and objective to assume that the differences are reli-
selection procedures free of adverse im- able, or that they are based upon any-
pact against any race, sex or ethnic group thing other than chance.
are unlikely to have an impact against a ru20. Why is the 4/5ths rule called a
subgroup. Thus there is no obligation to A. of t thumb?
make comparisons for subgroups Bec al i not aeIft be
If, (e.g., controlling g in in all circumstances.
, for
white male, white female, black male, the sake of illustration, we assume that
black female). However, there are obliga- nationwide statistics show that use of an
tions to keep records (see Question 87), arrest record would disqualify 10% of all
and any apparent exclusion of a subgroup Hispanic persons but only 4% of all whites
may suggest the presence of discrimina- other than Hispanic (hereafter non-His-
tion. panic), the selection rate for that selec-
18. Q. Is it usually necessary to calcu- tion procedure is 90% for Hispanics and
late the statistical significance of differ- 96% for non-Hispanics. Therefore, the 4/5
ences in selection rates when investigat- rule of thumb would not indicate the
ing the existence of adverse impact? presence of adverse impact (90% is ap-
A. No. Adverse impact is normally proximately 94% of 96%). But in this
indicated when one selection rate is less example, the information is based upon
than 80% of the other. The federal nationwide statistics, and the sample is
enforcement agencies normally will use large enough to yield statistically signifi-
only the 80% (4/5ths) rule of thumb, cant results, and the difference (Hispan-
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458ROO0100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 55
ics are 21/2 times as likely to be disquali-
f' d His anics) is large enough to
n-
15 divided by 20-75% (which is less
than 80%)
p
lC as no
be practically significant. Thus, in this A. No. If the numbers of persons and
example the enforcement agencies would the difference in selection rates are so
consider a disqualification based on an small that it is likely that the difference
arrest record alone as having an adverse could have occurred by chance, the Feder-
impact. Likewise, in Gregory v. Litton al agencies will not assume the existence
Industries, 472 F. 2d 631 (9th Cir., 1972), 5 of adverse impact, in the absence of other
FEP Cases 267, the court held that the evidence. In this example, the difference
employer violated Title VII by disqualify- in selection rates is too small, given the
ing persons from employment solely on small number of black applicants, to
the basis of an arrest record, where that constitute adverse impact in the absence
disqualification had an adverse impact on of other information (see Section 4D). If
blacks and was not shown to be justified only one more black had been hired
by business necessity. instead of a white the selection rate for
On the other hand, a difference of more blacks (20%) would be higher than that
than 20% in rates of selection may not for whites (18.7%). Generally, it is inap-
provide a basis for finding adverse impact propriate to require validity evidence or
if the number of persons selected is very to take enforcement action where the
small. For example, if the employer number of persons and the difference in
selected three males and one female from selection rates are so small that the
an applicant pool of 20 males and 10 selection of one different person for one
females, the 4/5ths rule would indicate job would shift the result from adverse
adverse impact (selection rate for women impact against one group to a situation in
is 10%; for men 15%; 10/15 or 662/3% is which that group has a higher selection
less than 80%), yet the number of selec- rate than the other group.
tions is too small to warrant a determina- On the other hand, if a lower selection
tion of adverse impact. In these circum-
stances, rate continued over a period of time, so as
the enforcement agency would to constitute a pattern, then the lower
not require validity evidence in the selection rate would constitute adverse
absence of additional information (such im act, warranting the need for validity
as selection rates for a longer period of evidence.
time) indicating adverse impact. For e 22. Q Is it ever necessary to calculate
recordkeeping requirements, see Section the statistical significance of differences
15) and Questions 84 and 85. in selection rates to determine whether
21. Q. Is evidence of adverse impact
21. Q. impact exists?
sufficient to warrant a validity study or adverse
Yes. Where sts? numbers of selec-
an enforcement action where the num- tions are made, relatively small differ-
likely involved are so small that it is more ties in selection rates may nevertheless
likely than not that the difference could constitute adverse impact if they are both
have occurred by chance? statistically and practically significant.
For example:
See Section 4D and Question 20. For that
perc
Applicants Not hired Hired ratehiredent
80 White ..... 64 16 20
20 Black ..... 17 3 15
White Selection Rate .....................
20
Black Selection Rate .....................
15
reason, if there is a small difference in
selection rates (one rate is more than 80%
of the other), but large numbers of
selections are involved, it would be appro-
priate to calculate the statistical signifi-
cance of the difference in selection rates.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458ROO0100110002-8
56 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES
2:1. Q. When the 4/5th rule of thumb for the last four years, there have been
shows adverse impact, is there adverse special recruitment efforts aimed at
impact under the Guidelines? recent black high school graduates and
A. There usually is adverse impact, that the selection process, which includes
except where the number of persons the written examination, has resulted in
selected and the difference in selection the selection of black applicants for
rates are very small. See Section 4D and apprenticeship in approximately the same
Questions 20 and 21. rates as white applicants.
24, Q. Why do the Guidelines rely In those circumstances, if the written
primarily upon the 4/5ths rule of thumb, examination had an adverse impact, its
rather than tests of statistical signifi- use would tend to keep incumbent black
cance? employees in the laborer department, and
A. Where the sample of persons select- deny them entry to apprenticeship pro-
ed is not large, even a large real differ- grams. For that reason, the enforcement
ence between groups is likely not to be agencies would expect the user to evalu-
confirmed by a test of statistical signifi- ate the impact of the written examina-
cance (at the usual .05 level of signifi- tion, and to have validity evidence for the
cance). For this reason, the Guidelines do use of the written examination if it has
not rely primarily upon a test of statisti- an adverse impact.
cal significance, but use the 4/5ths rule of (2) Where the weight of court decisions
thumb as a practical and easy-to-adminis- or administrative interpretations holds
ter measure of whether differences in that a specific selection procedure is not
selection rates are substantial. Many job related in similar circumstances.
decisions in day-to-day life are made For example, courts have held that
without reliance upon a test of statistical because an arrest is not a determination
significance. of guilt, an applicant's arrest record by
25. Q. Are there any circumstances in itself does not indicate inability to per-
which the employer should evaluate form a job consistent. with the trustwor-
components of a selection process, even thy and efficient operation of a business.
though the overall selection process Yet a no arrest record requirement has a
results in no adverse impact? nationwide adverse impact on some mi-
A. Yes, there are such circumstances: nority groups. Thus, an employer who
(1) Where the selection procedure is a refuses to hire applicants solely on the
significant factor in the continuation of basis of an arrest record is on notice that
patterns of assignments of incumbent this policy may be found to be discrimina-
employees caused by prior discriminatory tory. Gregory v. Litton Industries. 472
employment practices. Assume, for ex- F.2d 631 (9th Cir., 1972), 5 FEP Cases 267
ample, an employer who traditionally (excluding persons from employment
hired blacks as employees for the "labor- solely on the basis of arrests, which has
er" department in a manufacturing plant, an adverse impact, held to violate Title
and traditionally hired only whites as VII). Similarly, a minimum height re-
skilled craftsmen. Assume further that quirement, disproportionately disqualifies
the employer in 1962 began to use a women and some national origin groups,
written examination not supported by a and has been held not to be related in a
validity study to screen incumbent em- number of cases. For example, in Dothard
ployees who sought to enter the appren- v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977),15 FEP
ticeship program for skilled craft jobs. Cases 1.0, the Court held that height and
The employer stopped making racial weight requirements not shown to be job
assignments in 1972. Assume further that related were violative of Title VII. Thus
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458ROO0100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 57
an employer using a minimum height
requirement should have evidence of its
validity.
(3) In addition, there may be other
circumstances in which an enforcement
agency may decide to request an employ-
er to evaluate components of a selection
process, but such circumstances would
clearly be unusual. Any such decision will
be made only at a high level in the
agency. Investigators and compliance
officers are not authorized to make this
decision.
26. Q. Does the bottom line concept of
Section 4C apply to the administrative
processing of charges of discrimination
filed with an issuing agency, alleging
that a specific selection procedure is
discriminatory?
A. No. The bottom line concept applies
only to enforcement actions as defined in
Section 16 of the Guidelines. Enforce-
ment actions include only court enforce-
ment actions and other similar proceed-
ings as defined in Section 161. The EEOC
administrative processing of charges of
discrimination (investigation, finding of
reasonable cause/no cause, and concilia-
tion) required by Section 706(b) of Title
VII are specifically exempted from the
bottom line concept by the definition of
an enforcement action. The bottom line
concept is a result of a decision by the
various enforcement agencies that, as a
matter of prosecutorial discretion, they
will devote their limited enforcement
resources to the most serious offenders of
equal employment opportunity laws.
Since the concept is not a rule of law, it
does not affect the discharge by the
EEOC of its statutory responsibilities to
investigate charges of discrimination,
render an administrative finding on its
investigation, and engage in voluntary
conciliation efforts. Similarly, with re-
spect to the other issuing agencies, the
bottom line concept applies not to the
processing of individual charges, but to
the initiation of enforcement action.
27. Q. An employer uses one test or
other selection procedure to select per-
sons for a number of different jobs.
Applicants are given the test, and the
successful applicants are then referred to
different departments and positions on
the basis of openings available and their
interests. The Guidelines appear to re-
quire assessment of adverse impact on a
job-by-job basis (Section 15A(2)(a)). Is
there some way to show that the test as a
whole does not have adverse impact even
though the proportions of members of
each race, sex or ethnic group assigned to
different jobs may vary?
A. Yes, in some circumstances. The
Guidelines require evidence of validity
only for those selection procedures which
have an adverse impact, and which are
part of a selection process which has an
adverse impact. If the test is adminis-
tered and used in the same fashion for a
variety of jobs, the impact of that test
can be assessed in the aggregate. The
records showing the results of the test,
and the total number of persons selected,
generally would be sufficient to show the
impact of the test. If the test has no
adverse impact, it need not be validated.
But the absence of adverse impact of
the test in the aggregate does not end the
inquiry. For there may be discrimination
or adverse impact in the assignment of ?
individuals to, or in the selection of
persons for, particular jobs. The Guide-
lines call for records to be kept and
determinations of adverse impact to be
made of the overall selection process on a
job by job basis. Thus, if there is adverse
impact in the assignment or selection
procedures for a job even though there is
no adverse impact from the test, the user
should eliminate the adverse impact from
the assignment procedure or justify the
assignment procedure.
28. Q. The Uniform Guidelines apply to
the requirements of Federal law prohibit-
ing employment practices which discrim-
inate on the grounds of race, color,
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
58 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM CIJIDELINES
religion, sex or national origin. However, to institute action against a user on the
records are required to be kept only by basis of a selection procedure which has
sex and by specified race and ethnic adverse impact and which has not been
groups. How can adverse impact be validated, the enforcement agency will
determined for religious groups and for take into account the general equal
national origin groups other than those employment opportunity posture of the
specified in Section 4B of the Guidelines? user with respect to the job classifications
A. The groups for which records are for which the procedure is used and the
required to be maintained are the groups progress which has been made in carrying
for which there is extensive evidence of out any affirmative action program.
continuing discriminatory practices. This Section 4E. If the user has demonstrated
limitation is designed in part to minimize over a substantial period of time that it is
the burden on employers for recordkeep- in fact appropriately utilizing in the job
ing which may not be needed. or group of jobs in question the available
For groups for which records are not race, sex or ethnic groups in the relevant
required, the person(s) complaining may labor force, the enforcement agency will
obtain information from the employer or generally exercise its discretion by not
others (voluntarily or through legal pro- initiating enforcement proceedings based
cess) to show that adverse impact has on adverse impact in relation to the
taken place. When that has been done, applicant flow. Second, nothing in the
the various provisions of the Uniform Guidelines is intended to preclude the use
Guidelines are fully applicable. of selection procedures, consistent with
Whether or not there is adverse impact, Federal law, which assist in the achieve-
Federal equal employment opportunity ment of affirmative action objectives.
law prohibits any deliberate discrimina- Section 13A. See also, Questions 30 and
tion or disparate treatment on grounds of 31.
religion or national origin, as well as on 30. Q. When may a user be race, sex or
grounds of sex, color, or race, ethnic-conscious?
Whenever "ethnic" is used in the A. The Guidelines recognize that affir-
Guidelines or in these Questions and mative action programs may be race, sex
Answers, it is intended to include nation- or ethnic conscious in appropriate circum-
al origin and religion, as set forth in the stances, (See Sections 4E and 13; See also
statutes, executive orders, and regula- Section 17, Appendix). In addition to
tions prohibiting discrimination. See Sec- obligatory affirmative action programs
tion 16P. (See Question 29), the Guidelines encour-
29. Q. What is the relationship between age the adoption of voluntary affirmative
affirmative action and the requirements action programs. Users choosing to en-
of the Uniform Guidelines? gage in voluntary affirmative action are
A. The two subjects are different, referred to EEOC's Guidelines on Affir-
although related. Compliance with the mative Action (44 F.R. 4422, January 19,
Guidelines does not relieve users of their 1979). A user may justifiably be race, sex
affirmative action obligations, including or ethnic-conscious in circumstances
those of Federal contractors and subcon- where it has reason to believe that
tractors under Executive Order 11246. qualified persons of specified race, sex or
Section 13. ethnicity have been or may be subject to
The Guidelines encourage the develop- the exclusionary effects of its selection
anent and effective implementation of procedures or other employment prac-
affirmative action plans or programs in tices in its work force or particular jobs
two ways. First in determinin wheth th n IInn g
Approved ror Release 001/1'%07 : Eri RD e- V4WgF ft 66' '02-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 59
range goals, the employer may use the impact rather than demonstrating the
race, sex, or ethnic classification as the validity of the original selection proce-
basis for such goals (Section 17(3)(a)). dure.
In establishing a recruiting program, Many users, while wishing to validate
the employer may direct its recruiting all of their selection procedures, are not
activities to locations or institutions able to conduct the validity studies imme-
which have a high proportion of the race, diately. Such users have the option of
sex, or ethnic group which has been choosing alternative techniques which
excluded or underutilized (Section eliminate adverse impact, with a view to
17(3)(b)). In establishing the pool of providing a basis for determining subse-
qualified persons from which final selec- quently which selection procedures are
tions are to be made, the employer may valid and have as little adverse impact as
take reasonable steps to assure that possible.
members of the excluded or underutilized Apart from Federal equal employment
race, sex, or ethnic group are included in opportunity law, employers have econom-
the pool (Section 17(3)(e)). is incentives to use properly validated
Similarly, the employer may be race, selection procedures. Nothing in Section
sex or ethnic-conscious in determining 6A should be interpreted as discouraging
what changes should be implemented if the use of properly validated selection
procedures; but Federal equal employ-
the objmet o the programs are not ment opportunity law does not require
beE g arctin 17(3)(g)). validity studies to be conducted unless
Even n ap apart from affirmative action there is adverse impact. See Section 2C.
programs a user may be race, sex or
ethnic-conscious in taking appropriate III. General Questions Concerning Valid-
and lawful measures to eliminate adverse ity and the Use of Selection Procedures
impact from selection procedures (Section 32. Q. What is "validation" according
6A). to the Uniform Guidelines?
31. Q. Section 6A authorizes the use of A. Validation is the demonstration of
alternative selection procedures to elimi- the job relatedness of a selection proce-
nate adverse impact, but does not appear dure. The Uniform Guidelines recognize
to address the issue of validity. Thus, the the same three validity strategies recog-
use of alternative selection procedures nized by the American Psychological
without adverse impact seems to be Association:
presented as an option in lieu of valida- (1) Criterion-related validity-a statis-
tion. Is that its intent? tical demonstration of a relationship
A. Yes. Under Federal equal employ- between scores on a selection procedure
ment opportunity law the use of any and job performance of a sample of
selection procedure which has an adverse workers.
impact on any race, sex or ethnic group is (2) Content validity-a demonstration
discriminatory unless the procedure has that the content of a selection procedure
been properly validated, or the use of the is representative of important aspects of
procedure is otherwise justified under performance on the job.
Federal law. Griggs Duke Power Co., 401 (3) Construct validity-a demonstra-
U.S. 424 (1971), 3 FEP Cases 175; Section tion that (a) a selection procedure mea-
3A. If a selection procedure has an sures a construct (something believed to
adverse impact, therefore, Federal equal be an underlying human trait or charac-
employment opportunity law authorizes teristic, such as honesty) and (b) the
the user to choose lawful alternative construct is important for successful job
procedures which eliminate the adverse performance.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
60 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GITIDELINES
13. Q. What is the typical process by
which validity studies are reviewed by an
enforcement agency?
A. The validity study is normally
requested by an enforcement officer
during the course of a review. The officer
will first determine whether the user's
data show that the overall selection
process has an adverse impact, and if so,
which component selection procedures
have an adverse impact. See Section
15A(3). The officer will then ask for the
evidence of validity for each procedure
which has an adverse impact, See Sec-
tions 15B, C, and D. This validity evi-
dence will be referred to appropriate
personnel for review. Agency findings
will then be communicated to the user.
34. Q. Can a user send its validity
evidence to an enforcement agency be-
fore a review, so as to assure its validity?
A. No. Enforcement agencies will not
review validity reports except in the
context of investigations or reviews.
Even in those circumstances, validity
evidence will not he reviewed without
evidence of how the selection procedure is
used and what impact its use has on
various race, sex, and ethnic groups.
35. Q. May reports of validity prepared
by publishers of commercial tests and
printed in test manuals or other litera-
ture be helpful in meeting the Guide-
lines?
A. They may be. However, it is the
user's responsibility to determine that the
validity evidence is adequate to meet the
Guidelines. See Section 7, and Questions
43 and 66. Users should not use selection
procedures which are likely to have an
adverse impact without reviewing the
evidence of validity to make sure that the
standards of the Guidelines are met.
The following questions and answers
(36-81) assume that a selection procedure
has an adverse impact and is part of a
selection process that has an adverse
impact.
36. Q. How can users justify continued
use of a procedure on a basis other than
validity?
A. Normally, the method of justifying
selection procedures with an adverse
impact and the method to which the
Guidelines are primarily addressed, is
validation. The method of justification of
a procedure by means other than validity
is one to which the Guidelines are not
addressed. See Section 6B. In Griggs v.
Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 3 FEP
Cases 175, the Supreme Court indicated
that the burden on the user was a heavy
one, but that the selection procedure
could be used if there was a "business
necessity" for its continued use; there-
fore, the Federal agencies will consider
evidence that a selection procedure is
necessary for the safe and efficient
operation of a business to justify contin-
ued use of a selection procedure.
37. Q. Is the demonstration of a
rational relationship (as that term is
used in constitutional law) between a
selection procedure and the job sufficient
to meet the validation requirements of
the Guidelines?
A. No. The Supreme Court in Washing-
ton v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976), 12 FEP
Cases 1415 stated that different stan-
dards would be applied to employment
discrimination allegations arising under
the Constitution than would be applied to
employment discrimination allegations
arising under Title VII. The Davis case
arose under the Constitution, and no Title
VII violation was alleged. The Court
applied a traditional constitutional law
standard of "rational relationship" and
said that it would defer to the "seemingly
reasonable acts of administrators and
executives." However, it went on to point
out that under Title VII, the appropriate
standard would still be an affirmative
demonstration of the relationship be-
tween the selection procedure and mea-
sures of job performance by means of
accepted procedures of validation and it
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 61
would be an "insufficient response to
demonstrate some rational basis" for a
selection procedure having an adverse
impact. Thus, the mere demonstration of
a rational relationship between a selec-
tion procedure and the job does not meet
the requirement of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, or of Executive Order
11246, or the State and Local Fiscal
Assistance Act of 1972, as amended (the
revenue sharing act) or the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968, as amended, and will not meet the
requirements of these Guidelines for a
validity study. The three validity strate-
gies called for by these Guidelines all
require evidence that the selection proce-
dure is related to successful performance
on the job. That evidence may be ob-
tained through local validation or
through validity studies done elsewhere.
38. Q. Can a user rely upon written or
oral assertions of validity instead of
evidence of validity?
A. No. If a user's selection procedures
have an adverse impact, the user is
expected to produce evidence of the
validity of the procedures as they are
used. Thus, the unsupported assertion by
anyone, including representatives of the
Federal government or State Employ-
ment Services, that a test battery or
other selection procedure has been vali-
dated is not sufficient to satisfy the
Guidelines.
39. Q. Are there any formal require-
ments imposed by these Guidelines as to
who is allowed to perform a validity
study?
A. No. A validity study is judged on its
own merits, and may be performed by
any person competent to apply the princi-
ples of validity research, including a
member of the user's staff or a consul-
tant. However, it is the user's responsibil-
ity to see that the study meets validity
provisions of the Guidelines, which are
based upon professionally accepted stan-
dards. See Question 42.
40. Q. What is the relationship between
the validation provisions of the Guide-
lines and other statements of psychologi-
cal principles, such as the Standards for
Educational and Psychological Tests,
published by the American Psychological
Association (Wash., D.C., 1974) (herein-
after "American Psychological Associa-
tion Standards")?
A. The validation provisions of the
Guidelines are designed to be consistent
with the generally accepted standards of
the psychological profession. These
Guidelines also interpret Federal equal
employment opportunity law, and em-
body some policy determinations of an
administrative nature. To the extent that
there may be differences between partic-
ular provisions of the Guidelines and
expressions of validation principles found
elsewhere, the Guidelines will be given
precedence by the enforcement agencies.
41. Q. When should a validity study be
carried out?
A. When a selection procedure has
adverse impact on any race, sex or ethnic
group, the Guidelines generally call for a
validity study or the elimination of
adverse impact. See Sections 3A and 6,
and Questions 9, 31, and 36. If a selection
procedure has adverse impact, its use in
making employment decisions without
adequate evidence of validity would be
inconsistent with the Guidelines. Users
who choose to continue the use of a
selection procedure with an adverse im-
pact until the procedure is challenged
increase the risk that they will be found
to be engaged in discriminatory practices
and will be liable for back pay awards,
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, loss of Federal
contracts, subcontracts or grants, and the
like. Validation studies begun on the eve
of litigation have seldom been found to be
adequate. Users who choose to validate
selection procedures should consider the
potential benefit from having a valida-
tion study completed or well underway
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
62 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES
before the procedures are administered predicting success on a different job or
for use in employment decisions. the same job in a different location?
42. Q. Where can a user obtain profes- A. Yes. Because of differences in work
sonal advice concerning validation of behaviors, criterion measures, study sam-
selection procedures? ples or other factors, a selection proce-
A. Many industrial and personnel psy- dure found to have validity in one
ethologists validate selection procedures, situation does not necessarily have validi-
review published evidence of validity and ty in different circumstances. Conversely,
hake recommendations with respect to a selection procedure not found to have
the use of selection procedures. Many of validity in one situation may have validi-
these individuals are members or fellows ty in different circumstances. For these
of Division 14 (Industrial and Organiza- reasons, the Guidelines requires that
tional Psychology) or Division 5 (Evalu- certain standards be satisfied before a
ation and Measurement) of the American user may rely upon findings of validity in
Psychological Association. They can be another situation. Section 7 and Section
identified in the membership directory of 14D. See also, Question 66. Cooperative
that organization. A high level of qualifi- and multi-unit studies are however en-
cation is represented by a diploma in couraged, and, when those standards of
Industrial Psychology awarded by the the Guidelines are satisfied, validity
American Board of Professional Psychol- ,vidence specific to each location is not
ogy. required. See Section 7C and Section 8.
Individuals with the necessary compe- 44. Q. Is the user of a selection
tence may come from a variety of back-
grounds. The primary qualification is duocedure required to develop the proee-
pertinent training and experience in the dre?
conduct of validation research. A. No. A selection procedure developed
Industrial psychologists and other per- elsewhere may be used. However, the
sons competent in the field may be found user has the obligation to show that its
consistent
as faculty members in colleges and uni- with use for the the Guidelines. job is
versities (normally in the departments of . See Section 7.
psychology or business administration) or 45. Q. Do the Guidelines permit users
working as individual consultants or as to engage in cooperative efforts to meet
members of a consulting organization. the Guidelines?
Not all psychologists have the neces- A. Yes. The Guidelines not only permit
sary expertise. States have boards which but encourage such efforts. Where users
license and certify psychologists, but not have participated in a cooperative study
generally in a specialty such as industrial which meets the validation standards of
psychology. However, State psychological these Guidelines and proper account has
associations may be a source of informa- been taken of variables which might
tion as to individuals qualified to conduct affect the applicability of the study to
validation studies. Addresses of State specific users, validity evidence specific to
psychological associations or other each user will not be required. Section 8.
sources of information may be obtained 46. Q. Must the same method for
from the American Psychological Associ- validation be used for all parts of a
ation, 1200 Seventeenth Street. NW., selection process?
Washington, D.C. 20036. A. No. For example, where a selection
43. Q. Can a selection procedure be a process includes both a physical perfor-
valid predictor of performance on a job mance test and an interview, the physical
in a certain location and be invalid for test might be supported on the basis of
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 63
content validity, and the interview on the tion should continue until the user has
basis of a criterion-related study. reasonably concluded that the alternative
47. Q. Is a showing of validity suffi- is not useful or not suitable, or until a
cient to assure the lawfulness of the use study of its validity has been completed.
of a selection procedure? Once the full validity study has been
A. No. The use of the selection proce- completed, including the evidence con-
dure must be consistent with the validity cerning the alternative procedure, the
evidence. For example, if a research user should evaluate the results of the
study shows only that, at a given passing study to determine which procedure
score the test satisfactorily screens out should be used. See Section 3B and
probable failures, the study would not Question 50.
justify the use of substantially different 49. Q. Do the Guidelines call for a user
passing scores, or of ranked lists of those continually to investigate "suitable alter-
who passed. See Section 5G. Similarly, if native selection procedures and suitable
the research shows that a battery is valid alternative methods of using the selec-
when a particular set of weights is used, tion procedure which have as little ad-
the weights actually used must conform verse impact as possible"?
to those that were established by the A. No. There is no requirement for
research. continual investigation. A reasonable
48. Q. Do the Guidelines call for a user investigation of alternatives is called for
to consider and investigate alternative by the Guidelines as a part of any validity
selection procedures when conducting a study. Once the study is complete and
validity study? validity has been found, however, there is
A. Yes. The Guidelines call for a user, generally no obligation to conduct fur-
when conducting a validity study, to ther investigations, until such time as a
make a reasonable effort to become new study is called for. See, Sections 3B
aware of suitable alternative selection and 5K. If a government agency, com-
procedures and methods of use which plainant, civil rights organization or
have as little adverse impact as possible, other person having a legitimate interest
and to investigate those which are suit- shows such a user an alternative proce-
able. Section 3B. dure with less adverse impact and with
An alternative procedure may not substantial evidence of validity for the
previously have been used by the user for same job in similar circumstances, the
the job in question and may not have user is obligated to investigate only the
been extensively used elsewhere. Accord- particular procedure which has been
ingly, the preliminary determination of presented. Section 3B.
the suitability of the alternative selection 50. Q. In what circumstances do the
procedure for the user and job in question Guidelines call for the use of an alterna-
may have to be made on the basis of tive selection procedure or an alternative
incomplete information. If on the basis of method of using the procedure?
the evidence available, the user deter- A. The alternative selection procedure
mines that the alternative selection pro- (or method of use) should be used when it
cedure is likely to meet its legitimate has less adverse impact and when the
needs, and is likely to have less adverse evidence shows that its validity is sub-
impact than the existing selection proce- stantially the same or greater for the
dure, the alternative should be investi- same job in similar circumstances. Thus,
gated further as a part of the validity if under the original selection procedure
study. The extent of the investigation the selection rate for black applicants
should be reasonable. Thus, the investiga- was only one half (50 percent) that of the
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
64 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES
selection rate for white applicants,
whereas under the alternative selection
procedure the selection rate for blacks is
two-thirds (67 percent) that of white
applicants, the new alternative selection
procedure should be used when the
evidence shows substantially the same or
greater validity for the alternative than
for the original procedure. The same
principles apply to a new user who is
deciding what selection procedure to
institute.
51. Q. What are the factors to be
considered in determining whether the
validity for one procedure is substantial-
ly the same as or greater than that of
another procedure?
A. In the case of a criterion-related
validity study, the factors include the
importance of the criteria for which
significant relationships are found, the
magnitude of the relationship between
selection procedure scores and criterion
measures, and the size and composition of
the samples used. For content validity,
the strength of validity evidence would
depend upon the proportion of critical
and/or important job behaviors mea-
sured, and the extent to which the
selection procedure resembles actual
work samples or work behaviors. Where
selection procedures have been validated
by different strategies, or by construct
validity, the determination should be
made on a case by case basis.
52. Q. The Guidelines required consid-
eration of alternative procedures and
alternative methods of use, in light of the
evidence of validity and utility and the
degree of adverse impact of the proce-
dure. How can a user know that any
selection procedure with an adverse
impact is lawful?
A. The Uniform Guidelines (Section
5G) expressly permit the use of a proce-
dure in a manner supported by the
evidence of validity and utility, even if
another method of use has a lesser
adverse impact. With respect to consider-
Approved For Release 2001/11/07
ation of alternative selection procedures,
if the user made a reasonable effort to
become aware of alternative procedures,
has considered them and investigated
those which appear suitable as a part of
the validity study, and has shown validity
for a procedure, the user has complied
with the Uniform Guidelines. The burden
is then on the person challenging the
procedure to show that there is another
procedure with better or substantially
equal validity which will accomplish the
same legitimate business purposes with
less adverse impact. Section 3B. See also,
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S.
405, 10 FEP Cases 1181.
5.3. Q. Are the Guidelines consistent
with the decision of the Supreme Court
in Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters,
-- 11.8. --, 98 S. Ct. 2943 (1978), 17
FEP Cases 1062 where the Court stated:
"Title VII * * * does not impose a duty to
adopt a hiring procedure that maximizes
hiring of minority employees."
A. Yes. The quoted statement in Furn-
co v. Waters was made on a record where
there was no adverse impact in the hiring
process, no different treatment, no inten-
tional discrimination, and no contractual
obligations under E.O. 11246. Section 3B
of the Guidelines is predicated upon a
finding of adverse impact. Section 3B
indicates that, when two or more selec-
tion procedures are available which serve
a legitimate business purpose with sub-
stantially equal validity, the user should
use the one which has been demonstrated
to have the lesser adverse impact. Part V
of the Overview of the Uniform Guide-
lines, in elaborating on this principle,
states: "Federal equal employment op-
portunity law has added a requirement to
the process of validation. In conducting a
validation study, the employer should
consider available alternatives which will
achieve its legitimate purpose with lesser
adverse impact."
Section 3B of the Guidelines is based on
the principle enunciated in the Supreme
CIA-RDPOO-01458R0001001 0002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 65
Court decision in Albermarle Paper Co. v.
Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975), 10 PEP Cases
1181 that, even where job relatedness has
been proven, the availability of other
tests or selection devices which would
also serve the employer's legitimate in-
terest in "efficient and trustworthy
workmanship" without a similarly unde-
sirable racial effect would be evidence
that the employer was using its tests
merely as a pretext for discrimination.
Where adverse impact still exists, even
though the selection procedure has been
validated, there continues to be an obliga-
tion to consider alternative procedures
which reduce or remove that adverse
impact if an opportunity presents itself to
do so without sacrificing validity. Where
there is no adverse impact, the Furnco
principle rather than the Albermarle
principle is applicable.
IV. Technical Standards
54. Q. How does a user choose which
validation strategy to use?
A. A user should select a validation
strategy or strategies which are (1)
appropriate for the type of selection
procedure, the job, and the employment
situation, and (2) technically and adminis-
tratively feasible. Whatever method of
validation is used, the basic logic is one of
prediction; that is, the presumption that
level of performance on the selection
procedure will, on the average, be indica-
tive of level of performance on the job
after selection. Thus, a criterion-related
study, particularly a predictive one, is
often regarded as the closest to such an
ideal. See American Psychological Associ-
ation Standards, pp. 26-27.
Key conditions for a criterion-related
study are a substantial number of indi-
viduals for inclusion in the study, and a
considerable range of performance on the
selection and criterion measures. In addi-
tion, reliable and valid measures of job
performance should be available, or capa-
ble of being developed. Section 14B(1).
Where such circumstances exist, a user
should consider use of the criterion-relat-
ed strategy.
Content validity is appropriate where it
is technically and administratively feasi-
ble to develop work samples or measures
of operationally defined skills, knowl-
edges, or abilities which are a necessary
prerequisite to observable work behav-
iors. Content validity is not appropriate
for demonstrating the validity of tests of
mental processes or aptitudes or charac-
teristics; and is not appropriate for
knowledges, skills or abilities which an
employee will be expected to learn on the
job. Section 14C(1).
The application of a construct validity
strategy to support employee selection
procedures is newer and less developed
than criterion-related or content validity
strategies. Continuing research may re-
sult in construct validity becoming more
widely used. Because construct validity
represents a generalization of findings,
one situation in which construct validity
might hold particular promise is that
where it is desirable to use the same
selection procedures for a variety of jobs.
An overriding consideration in whether
or not to consider construct validation is
the availability of an individual with a
high level of expertise in this field.
In some situations only one kind of
validation study is likely to be appropri-
ate. More than one strategy may be
possible in other circumstances, in which
case administrative considerations such
as time and expense may be decisive. A
combination of approaches may be feasi-
ble and desirable.
55. Q. Why do the Guidelines recognize
only content, construct and criterion-
related validity?
A. These three validation strategies are
recognized in the Guidelines since they
represent the current professional con-
sensus. If the professional community
recognizes new strategies or substantial
modifications of existing strategies, they
will be considered only if the user can
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
66 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES
demonstrate it and, if necessary, changes be Job gRalysis
will be made in the Guidelines. Section appropriateness or the specific job and
5A. employment situation through a study of
56. Q. Why don't the Uniform Guide- the job. The Supreme Court held in
lines state a preference for criterion- Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody 422 U.S.
related validity over content or construct 405 (1975), 10 FEP Cases 1181 that
validity? measures of overall job performance
A. Generally accepted principles of the should be carefully developed and their
psychological profession support the use use should be standardized and con-
of criterion-related, content or contruct trolled.
validity strategies as appropriate. Ameri- 59. Q. Section 5J on interim use
can Psychological Association Standards, requires the user to have available sub-
E. pp. 25-26. This use was recognized by stantial evidence of validity. What does
the Supreme Court in Washington v. this mean?
Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 247, fn. 13. Because A. For purposes of compliance with 5J,
the Guidelines describe the conditions "substantial evidence" means evidence
under which each validity strategy is which may not meet all the validation
inappropriate, there is no reason to state requirements of the Guidelines but which
a general preference for any one validity raises a strong inference that validity
strategy. pursuant to these standards will soon be
57. Q. Are the Guidelines intented to shown. Section 5J is based on the proposi-
restrict the development of new testing tion that it would not be an appropriate
strategies, psychological theories, meth- allocation of Federal resources to bring
ods of job analysis or statistical tech- enforcement proceedings against a user
piques? who would soon be able to satisfy fully
A. No. The Guidelines are concerned the standards of the Guidelines. For
with the validity and fairness of selection example, a criterion-related study may
procedures used in making employment have produced evidence which meets
decisions, and are not intended to limit almost all of the requirements of the
research and new developments. See Guidelines with the exception that the
Question 55. gathering of the data of test fairness is
58. Q. Is a full job analysis necessary still in progress and the fairness study
for all validity studies? has not yet produced results. If the
A. IIttisrequired for all content an correlation coefficient for the group as a
construct studies, bu o o ~criteri- whole permits the strong inference that
on-related stu ies. ecct ons an the selection procedure is valid, then the
1471(ff. e41asures of the results or out- selection procedure may be used on an
comes of work behaviors such as produc- interim basis pending the completion of
tion rate or error rate may be used the fairness study.
without a full job analysis where a review 60. Q. What are the potential conse-
of information about the job shows that quences to a user when a selection
these criteria are important to the em- procedure is used on an interm basis?
ployment situation of the user. Similarly, A. The fact that the Guidelines permit
measures such as absenteeism, tardiness interim use of a selection procedure
or turnover may be used without a full under some conditions does not immunize
job analysis if these behaviors are shown the user from liability for back pay,
be a review of information about the job attorney's fees and the like, should use of
to be important in the specific situation. the selection procedure later be found to
A ratin of overall job performance may be in violation of the Guidelines. Section
Approved o as 2b' "17?'/07: CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 67
5J. For this reason, users should take
steps to come into full compliance with
the Guidelines as soon as possible. It is
also appropriate for users to consider
ways of minimizing adverse impact dur-
ing the period of interim use.
61. Q. Must provisions for retesting be
allowed for job-knowledge tests, where
knowledge of the test content would
assist in scoring well on it the second
time?
A. The primary intent of the provision
for retesting is that an applicant who was
not selected should be given another
chance. Particularly in the case of job-
knowledge tests, security precautions
may preclude retesting with the same
test after a short time. However, the
opprotunity for retesting should be pro-
vided for the same job at a later time,
when the applicant may have acquired
more of the relevant job knowledges.
62. Q. Under what circumstances may a
selection procedure be used for ranking?
A. Criterion-related and construct va-
lidity strategies are essentially empirical,
statistical processes showing a relation-
ship between performance on the selec-
tion procedure and performance on the
job. To justify ranking under such validi-
ty strategies, therefore, the user need
show mathematical support for the prop-
osition that persons who receive higher
scores on the procedure are likely to
perform better on the job.
Content validity, on the other hand, is
primarily a judgmental process concerned
with the adequacy of the selection proce-
dure as a sample of the work behaviors.
Use of a selection procedure on a ranking
basis may be supported by content validi-
ty if there is evidence from job analysis
or other empirical data that what is
measured by the selection procedure is
associated with differences in levels of
job performance. Section 14C(9); see also
Section 5G.
Any conclusion that a content vali-
dated procedure is appropriate for rank-
ing must rest on an inference that higher
scores on the procedure are related to
better job performance. The more closely
and completely the selection procedure
approximates the important work behav-
iors, the easier it is to make such an
inference. Evidence that better perfor-
mance on the procedure is related to
greater productivity or to performance of
behaviors of greater difficulty may also
support such an inference.
Where the content and context of the
selection procedure are unlike those of
the job, as, for example, in many paper-
and-pencil job knowledge tests, it is
difficult to infer an association between
levels of performance on the procedure
and on the job. To support a test of job
knowledge on a content validity basis,
there must be evidence of a specific tie-in
between each item of knowledge tested
and one or more work behaviors. See
Question 79. To justify use of such a test
for ranking, it would also have to be
demonstrated from empirical evidence
either that mastery of more difficult
work behaviors, or that mastery of a
greater scope of knowledge corresponds
to a greater scope of important work
behaviors.
For example, for a particular ware-
house worker job, the job analysis may
show that lifting a 50-pound object is
essential, but the job analysis does not
show that lifting heavier objects is essen-
tial or would result in significantly better
job performance. In this case a test of
ability to lift 50 pounds could be justified
on a content validity basis for a pass/fail
determination. However, ranking of can-
didates based on relative amount of
weight that can be lifted would be
inappropriate.
In another instance, a job analysis may
reflect that, for the job of machine
operator, reading of simple instructions is
not a major part of the job but is
essential. Thus, reading would be . a
critical behavior under the Guidelines.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
63 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES
See Section 14C(8). Since the job analysis
in this example did not also show that the
ability to read such instructions more
quickly or to understand more complex
materials would be likely to result in
better job performance, a reading test
suported by content validity alone should
be used on a pass/fail rather than a
ranking basis. In such circumstances, use
of the test for ranking would have to be
supported by evidence from a criterion-
related (or construct) validity study.
On the other hand, in the case of a
person to be hired for a typing pool, the
job analysis may show that the job
consists almost entirely of typing from
manuscript, and that productivity can be
measured directly in terms of finished
typed copy. For such a job, typing
constitutes not only a critical behavior,
but it constitutes most of the job. A
higher score on a test which measured
words per minute typed, with adjust-
ments for errors, would therefore be
likely to predict better job performance
than a significantly lower score. Ranking
or grouping based on such a typing test
would therefore be appropriate under the
Guidelines.
63. Q. If selection procedures are
administered by an employment agency
or a consultant for an employer, is the
employer relieved of responsibilities un-
der the Guidelines?
3_ No. The employer remains responsi-
ble. It is therefore expected that the
employer will have sufficient information
available to show: (a) What selection
procedures are being used on its behalf;
(b) the total number of applicants for
referral by race, sex and ethnic group; (c)
the number of persons, by race, sex and
ethnic group, referred to the employer;
and (d) the impact of the selection
procedures and evidence of the validity of
any such procedure having an adverse
impact as determined above.
A. Criterion-Related Validity
64. Q. Under what circumstances may
success in training be used as a criterion
in criterion-related validity studies?
A. Success in training is an appropriate
criterion when it is (1) necessary for
successful job performance or has been
shown to be related to degree of profi-
ciency on the job and (2) properly mea-
sured. Section 14B(3). The measure of
success in training should be carefully
developed to ensure that factors which
are not job related do not influence the
measure of training success. Section
14B(3).
65. Q. When may concurrent validity
be used?
A. A concurrent validity strategy as-
sumes that the findings from a criterion-
related validity study of current employ-
ees can be applied to applicants for the
same job. Therefore, if concurrent validi-
ty is to be used, differences between the
applicant and employee groups which
might affect validity should be taken into
account. The user should be particularly
concerned with those differences be-
tween the applicant group and current
employees used in the research sample
which are caused by work experience or
other work related events or by prior
selection of employees and selection of
the sample. See Section 14B(4).
66. Q. Under what circumstances can a
selection procedure be supported (on
other than an interim basis) by a criteri-
on-related validity study done elsewhere?
A. A validity study done elsewhere may
provide sufficient evidence if four condi-
tions are met (Sec. 7B):
1. The evidence from the other studies
clearly demonstrates that the procedure
was valid in its use elsewhere.
2. The job(s) for which the selection
procedure will be used closely matches
the job(s) in the original study as shown
by a comparison of major work behaviors
as shown by the job analyses in both
contexts.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 69
3. Evidence of fairness from the other
studies is considered for those groups
constituting a significant factor in the
user's labor market. Section 7B(3). Where
the evidence is not available the user
should conduct an internal study of test
fairness, if technically feasible. Section
7B(3).
4. Proper account is taken of variables
which might affect the applicability such
as performance standards, work methods,
representativeness of the sample in terms
of experience or other relevant factors,
and the currency of the study.
67. Q. What does "unfairness of a
selection procedure" mean?
A. When a specific score on a selection
procedure has a different meaning in
terms of expected job performance for
members of one race, sex or ethnic group
than the same score does for members of
another group, the use of that selection
procedure may be unfair for members of
one of the groups. See Section 16V. For
example, if members of one group have
an average score of 40 on the selection
procedure, but perform on the job as well
as another group which has an average
score of 50, then some uses of the
selection procedure would be unfair to
the members of the lower scoring group.
See Question 70.
68. Q. When should the user investi-
gate the question of fairness?
A. Fairness should be investigated
generally at the same time that a criteri-
on-related validity study is conducted, or
as soon thereafter as feasible. Section
14B(8).
69. Q. Why do the Guidelines require
that users look for evidence of un-
fairness?
A. The consequences of using unfair
selection procedures are severe in terms
of discriminating against applicants on
the basis of race, sex or ethnic group
membership. Accordingly, these studies
should be performed routinely where
technically feasible and appropriate,
whether or not the probability of finding
unfairness is small. Thus, the Supreme
Court indicated in Albemarle Paper Co. v.
Moody 422 U.S. 405, 10 FEP Cases 1181,
that a validation study was "materially
deficient" because, among other reasons,
it failed to investigate fairness where it
was not shown to be unfeasible to do so.
Moreover, the American Psychological
Association Standards published in 1974
call for the investigation of test fairness
in criterion-related studies wherever fea-
sible (pp. 43-44).
70. Q. What should be done if a
selection procedure is unfair for one or
more groups in the relevant labor mar-
ket?
A. The Guidelines discuss three options.
See Section 14B(8)(d). First, the selection
instrument may be replaced by another
validated instrument which is fair to all
groups. Second, the selection instrument
may be revised to eliminate the sources of
unfairness. For example, certain items
may be found to be the only ones which
cause the unfairness to a particular
group, and these items may be deleted or
replaced by others. Finally, revisions may
be made in the method of use of the
selection procedure to ensure that the
probability of being selected is compat-
ible with the probability of successful job
performance.
The Federal enforcement agencies rec-
ognize that there is serious debate in the
psychological profession on the question
of test fairness, and that information on
that concept is developing. Accordingly,
the enforcement agencies will consider
developments in this field in evaluating
actions occasioned by a finding of test
unfairness.
71. Q. How is test unfairness related to
differential validity and to differential
prediction?
A. Test unfairness refers to use of
selection procedures based on scores
when members of one group characteris-
tically obtain lower scores than members
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07
of another group, and the differences are
not reflected in measures of job perfor-
mance. See Sections 16V and 14B(8)(a),
and Question 67.
Differential validity and test un-
fairness are conceptually distinct. Differ-
ential validity is defined as a situation in
which a given instrument has significant-
ly different validity coefficients for dif-
ferent race, sex or ethnic groups. Use of a
test may be unfair to some groups even
when differential validity is not found.
Differential prediction is a central
concept for one definition of test unf-
airness. Differential prediction occurs
when the use of the same set of scores
systematically overpredicts or under-pre-
dicts job performance for members of one
group as compared to members of anoth-
er group.
Other definitions of test unfairness
which do not relate to differential predic-
tion may, however, also be appropriately
applied to employment decisions. Thus
these Guidelines are not intended to
choose between fairness models as long as
the model selected is appropriate to the
manner in which the selection procedure
is used.
72. Q. What options does a user have if
a criterion-related study is appropriate
but is not feasible because there are not
enough persons in the job?
A. There are a number of options the
user should consider, depending upon the
particular facts and circumstances, such
as:
1. Change the procedure so as to
eliminate 8dverse impact (see Section
6A);
2. Validate a procedure through a
content validity strategy, if appropriate
(see Section 14C and Questions 54 and
74);
3. Use a selection procedure validated
elsewhere in conformity with the Guide-
lines (see Sections 7-8 and Question 66);
4. Engage in a cooperative study with
other facilities or users (in cooperation
Approved For Release 2001/11/07
with such users either bilaterally or
through industry or trade associations or
governmental groups), or participate in
research studies conducted by the state
employment security system. Where dif-
ferent locations are combined, care is
needed to insure that the jobs studied are
in fact the same and that the study is
adequate and in conformity with the
Guidelines (see Sections 8 and 14 and
Question 45).
5. Combine essentially similar jobs into
a single study sample. See Section 14B(1).
B. Content Validity
73. Q. Must a selection procedure
supported by content validity be an
actual "on the job" sample of work
behaviors?
A. No. The Guidelines emphasize the
importance of a close approximation
between the content of the selection
procedure and the observable behaviors
or products of the job, so as to minimize
the inferential leap between performance
on the selection procedure and job perfor-
mance. However, the Guidelines also
permit justification on the basis of con-
tent validity of selection procedures mea-
suring knowledges, skills, or abilities
which are not necessarily samples of
work behaviors if: (1) The knowledge,
skill, or ability being measured is opera-
tionally defined in accord with Section
14C(4); and (2) that knowledge, skill, or
ability is a prerequisite for critical or
important work behaviors. In addition
users may justify a requirement for
training, or for experience obtained from
prior employment or volunteer work, on
the basis of content validity, even though
the prior training or experience does not
duplicate the job. See Section 14B(6).
74. Q. Is the use of a content validity
strategy appropriate for a procedure
measuring skills or knowledges which
are taught in training after initial em-
ployment?
A. Usually not. The Guidelines state
(Section 14C(1)) that content validity is
: CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 71
not appropriate where the selection pro-
cedure involves knowledge, skills, or
abilities which the employee will be
expected to learn "on the job". The
phrase "on the job" is intended to apply
to training which occurs after hiring,
promotion or transfer. However, if an
ability, such as speaking and understand-
ing a language, takes a substantial length
of time to learn, is required for successful
job performance, and is not taught to
those initial hires who possess it in
advance, a test for that ability may be
supported on a content validity basis.
75. Q. Can a measure of a trait or
construct be validated on the basis of
content validity?
A. No. Traits or constructs are by
definition underlying characteristics
which are intangible and are not directly
observable. They are therefore not appro-
priate for the sampling approach of
content validity. Some selection proce-
dures, while labeled as construct mea-
sures, may actually be samples of observ-
able work behaviors. Whatever the label,
if the operational definitions are in fact
based upon observable work behaviors, a
selection procedure measuring those be-
haviors may be appropriately supported
by a content validity strategy. For exam-
ple, while a measure of the construct
"dependability" should not be supported
on the basis of content validity,
promptness and regularity of attendance
in a prior work record are frequently
inquired into as a part of a selection
procedure, and such measures may be
supported on the basis of content validity.
76.' Q. May a test which measures what
the employee has learned in a training
program be justified for use in employ-
ment decisions on the basis of content
validity?
A. Yes. While the Guidelines (Section
14C(1)) note that content validity is not
an appropriate strategy for knowledges,
skills or abilities which an employee "will
be expected to learn on the job", nothing
in the Guidelines suggests that a test
supported by content validity is not
appropriate for determining what the
employee has learned on the job, or in a
training program. If the content of the
test is relevant to the job, it may be used
for employment decisions such as reten-
tion or assignment. See Section 14C(7).
77. Q. Is a task analysis necessary to
support a selection procedure based on
content validity?
A. A description of all tasks is not
required by the Guidelines. However, the
job analysis should describe all important
work behaviors and their relative impor-
tance and their level of difficulty. Sec-
tions 14C(2) and 15C(3). The job analysis
should focus on observable work behav-
iors and, to the extent appropriate,
observable work products, and the tasks
associated with the important observable
work behaviors and/or work products.
The job analysis should identify how the
critical or important work behaviors are
used in the job, and should support the
content of the selection procedure.
78. Q. What is required to show the
content validity of a paper-and-pencil
test that is intended to approximate
work behaviors?
A. Where a test is intended to replicate
a work behavior, content validity is
established by a demonstration of the
similarities between the test and the job
with respect to behaviors, products, and
the surrounding environmental condi-
tions. Section 14B(4).
Paper-and-pencil tests which are in-
tended to replicate a work behavior are
most likely to be appropriate where work
behaviors are performed in paper and
pencil form (e.g., editing and bookkeep-
ing). Paper-and-pencil tests of effective-
ness in interpersonal relations (e.g., sales
or supervision), or of physical activities
(e.g., automobile repair) or ability to
function properly under danger (e.g.,
firefighters) generally are not close
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
72 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES
enough approximations of work behav- by the relationship between the program
iors to show content validity. and critical or important behaviors of the
The appropriateness of tests of job job itself, or through a demonstration of
knowledge, whether or not in pencil and the relationship between measuring of
paper form, is addressed in Question 79. performance in training and measures of
79. Q. What is required to show the job performance.
content validity of a test of a job Under the example given above, there-
knowledge? fore, where the requirements in the
A. There must be a defined, well training materials exceed those on the
recognized body of information, and job, the training program itself could not
knowledge of the information must be be validated on a content validity basis if
prerequisite to performance of the re- passing it is a basis for retention or
quired work behaviors. The work behav- promotion.
ior(s) to which each knowledge is related C. Construct Validity
should be identified on an item by item 81. Q. In Section 5, "General Standards
basis. The test should fairly sample the for Validity Studies," construct validity
information that is actually used by the is identified as no less acceptable than
employee on the job, so that the level of criterion-related and content validity.
difficulty of the test items should corre- However, the specific requirements for
spond to the level of difficulty of the construct validity, in Section 14D, seem
knowledge as used in the work behavior. to limit the generalizability of construct
See Section 14C(1) and (4). validity to the rules governing criterion-
81t. Q. Under content validity, may a related validity. Can this apparent incon-
selection procedure for entry into a job sistency be reconciled?
be justified on the grounds that the A. Yes. In view of the developing
knowledges, skills or abilities measured nature of construct validation for em-
by the selection procedure are prerequi- ployment selection procedures, the ap-
sites to successful performance in a proach taken concerning the generaliza-
treining program? bility of construct validity (section 14D) is
IL_ Yes, but only if the training materi- intended to be a cautious one. However,
al and the training program closely construct validity may be generalized in
approximate the content and level of circumstances where transportability of
difficulty of the job and if the knowl- tests supported on the basis of criterion-
edges, skills or abilities are not those related validity would not be appropriate.
taught in the training program. For In establishing transportability of criteri-
example, if training materials are at a on-related validity, the jobs should have
level of reading difficulty substantially in substantially the same major work be-
excess of the reading difficulty of materi- haviors. Section 7B(2). Construct validity,
als used on the job, the Guidelines would on the other hand, allows for situations
not permit justification on a content where only some of the important work
validity basis of a reading test based on behaviors are the same. Thus, well-estab-
those training materials for entry into lished measures of the construct which
the job. underlie particular work behaviors and
Under the Guidelines a training pro- which have been shown to be valid for
gram itself is a selection procedure if some jobs may be generalized to other
passing it is a prerequisite to retention or jobs which have some of the same work
advancement. See Section 2C and behaviors but which are different with
140(17). As such, the content of the respect to other work behaviors. Section
training program may only be justified 14D(4).
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 73
As further research and professional
guidance on construct validity in employ-
ment situations emerge, additional exten-
sions of construct validity for employee
selection may become generally accepted
in the profession. The agencies encourage
further research and professional guid-
ance with respect to the appropriate use
of construct validity.
V. Records and Documentation
82. Q. Do the Guidelines have simpli-
fied recordkeeping for small users (em-
ployers who employ one hundred or fewer
employees and other users not required
to file EEO-1, et seq. reports)?
A. Yes. Although small users are fully
covered by Federal equal employment
opportunity law, the Guidelines have
reduced their record-keeping burden. See
option in Section 15A(1). Thus, small
users need not make adverse impact
determinations nor are they required to
keep applicant data on a job-by-job basis.
The agencies also recognize that a small
user may find that some or all validation
strategies are not feasible. See Question
54. If a small user has reason to believe
that its selection procedures have adverse
impact and validation is not feasible, it
should consider other options. See Sec-
tions 7A and 8 and Questions 31, 36, 45,
66, and 72.
83. Q. Is the requirement in the Guide-
lines that users maintain records of the
race, national origin, and sex of employ-
ees and applicants constitutional?
A. Yes. For example, the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
rejected a challenge on constitutional and
other grounds to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission regulations re-
quiring State and local governmental
units to furnish information as to race;
national origin and sex of employees.
United States v. New Hampshire, 539 F.
2d 277 (1st Cir. 1976), cert. denied, sub
nom. New Hampshire v. United States,
429 U.S. 1023, 13 FEP Cases 1808. The
Court held that the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements promulgated un-
der Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, were reasonably neces-
sary for the Federal agency to determine
whether the state was in compliance with
Title VII and thus were authorized and
constitutional. The same legal principles
apply to recordkeeping with respect to
applicants.
Under the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution, the Federal law requiring
maintenance of records identifying race,
sex and national origin overrides any
contrary provision of State law. See
Question 8.
The agencies recognize, however, that
such laws have been enacted to prevent
misuse of this information. Thus, employ-
ers should take appropriate steps to
ensure proper use of all data. See Ques-
tion 88.
84. Q. Is the user obliged to keep
records which show whether its selection
processes have an adverse impact on
race, sex, or ethnic groups?
A. Yes. Under the Guidelines users are
obliged to maintain evidence indicating
the impact which their selection processes
have on identifiable race, sex or ethnic
groups. Sections 4 A and B. If the
selection process for a job does have an
adverse impact on one or more such
groups, the user is expected to maintain
records showing the impact for the
individual procedures. Section 15A(2).
85. Q. What are the recordkeeping
obligations of a user who cannot deter-
mine whether a selection process for a
job has adverse impact because it makes
an insufficient number of selections for
that job in a year?
A. In such circumstances the user
should collect, maintain, and have avail-
able information on the impact of the
selection process and the component
procedures until it can determine that
adverse impact does not exist for the
overall process or until the job has
changed substantially. Section 15A(2)(c).
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
74 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES
86. Q. Should applicant and selection sex and by race or national origin; may in
information be maintained for race or some circumstances rely upon personal
ethnic groups constituting less than 2% knowledge of the user; or may rely upon
of the labor force and the applicants? self-identification. Where applications
A. Small employers and other small are not made in person and the applicants
users are not obliged to keep such rec- are not personally known to the employ-
ords. Section 15A(1). Employers with er, self-identification may be appropriate.
more than 100 employees and other users Wherever a self-identification form is
required to file EEO-1 et seq. reports used, the employer should advise the
should maintain records and other infor- applicant that identification by race, sex
mation upon which impact determina- and national origin is sought, not for
tions could be made, because section 15A2 employment decisions, but for record-
requires the maintenance of such infor- keeping in compliance with Federal law.
mation for "any of the groups for which Such self-identification forms should be
records are called for by section 4B kept separately from the application, and
above." See also, Section 4A.. should not be a basis for employment
No user, regardless of size, is required decisions; and the applicants should be so
to make adverse impact determinations advised. See Section 413.
for race or ethnic groups constituting less 89. Q, What information should be
than 2% of the labor force and the included in documenting a validity study
applicants. See Question 16. for purposes of these Guidelines?
87. Q. Should information be main- A. Generally, reports of validity studies
tained which identifies applicants and should contain all the information neces-
persons selected both by sex and by race sary to permit an enforcement agency to
or ethnic group? conclude whether a selection procedure
A. Yes. Although the Federal agencies has been validated. Information that is
have decided not to require computations critical to this determination is denoted in
of adverse impact by subgroups (white Section 15 of the Guidelines by the word
males, black males, white females, black ,(essential)".
females-see Question 17), the Guidelines Any reports completed after Septem-
call for record keeping which allows her 25, 1978, (the effective date of the
identification of persons by sex, combined Guidelines) which do not contain this
with race or ethnic group, so as to permit information will be considered incomplete
the identification of discriminatory prat- by the agencies unless there is good
tires on any such basis. Section 4A and reason for not including the information.
4B. Users should therefore prepare validation
88. Q. How should a user collect data according to the format of Sec
on race, sex or ethnic classifications for reports purposes of determining the impact of tion 15 of the Guidelines, and should
selection procedures? carefully document the reasons if any of
A. The Guidelines have not specified the information labeled "(essential)" is
any particular procedure, and the en- missing.
forcement agencies will accept different The major elements for all types of
procedures that capture the necessary validation studies include the following:
information. Where applications are When and where the study was con-
made in person, a user may maintain a ducted.
log or applicant now chart based upon A description of the selection proce-
visual observation, identifying the num- dure, how it is used, and the results by
her of persons expressing an interest, by race, sex and ethnic group.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES 75
How the job was analyzed or reviewed
and what information was obtained from
this job analysis or review.
The evidence demonstrating that the
selection procedure is related to the job.
The nature of this evidence varies, de-
pending upon the strategy used.
What alternative selection procedures
and alternative methods of using the
selection procedure were studied and the
results of this study.
The name, address and telephone num-
ber of a contact person who can provide
further information about the study.
The documentation requirements for
each validation strategy are set forth in
detail in Section 15 B, C, D, E, F, and G.
Among the requirements for each validi-
ty strategy are the following:
1. Criterion-Related Validity
A description of the criterion measures
of job performance, how and why they
were selected, and how they were used to
evaluate employees.
A description of the sample used in the
study, how it was selected, and the size of
each race, sex, or ethnic group in it.
A description of the statistical methods
used to determine whether scores on the
selection procedure are related to scores
on the criterion measures of job perfor-
mance, and the results of these statistical
calculations.
2. Content Validity
The content of the job, as identified
from the job analysis.
The content of the selection procedure.
The evidence demonstrating that the
content of the selection procedure is a
representative sample of the content of
the job.
3. Construct Validity
A definition of the construct and how it
relates to other constructs in the psycho-
logical literature.
The evidence that the selection proce-
dure measures the construct.
The evidence showing that the measure
of the construct is related to work
behaviors which involve the construct.
90. Q. Although the records called for
under "Source Data", Section 15B(11)
and Section 15D(11), are not listed as
"Essential", the Guidelines state that
each user should maintain such records,
and have them available upon request of
a compliance agency. Are these records
necessary? Does the absence of complete
records preclude the further use of
research data compiled prior to the
issuance of the Guidelines?
A. The Guidelines require the mainte-
nance of these records in some form "as a
necessary part of the study." Section
15A(3)(c). However, such records need
not be compiled or maintained in any
specific format. The term "Essential" as
used in the Guidelines refers to informa-
tion considered essential to the validity
report. Section 15A(3)(b). The Source
Data records need not be included with
reports of validation or other formal
reports until and unless they are specifi-
cally requested by a compliance agency.
The absence of complete records does not
preclude use of research data based on
those records that are available. Valida-
tion studies submitted to comply with the
requirements of the Guidelines may be
considered inadequate to the extent that
important data are missing or there is
evidence that the collected data are
inaccurate.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
Bibliography on Testing
I Tutor's Note: The following bibliography on significant books and articles on employment testing
was ?ompiled by James Shari, a specialist on test validation. It appeared in FAIR EMPt.ovMF NT PRA( -
ncc (BNA) 443:761.
Guidelines & Standards
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978), FEP 401:2231
American Psychological Association. Standards for educational & psychological tests
i i ev. ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author, (1974).
Division of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, American Psychological Association.
1"rinciples for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures. Washington,
1) C.: Author, 1975.
Office of Federal Contract Compliance. Questions and answers on the OFCC Testing
and Selection Order. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Labor, (1974).
U.S. Department of Labor. Employee testing and other selection procedures. Federal
Register, 36(192),19307-19310.
U.S. Department of Labor. Guidelines for reporting validity. Federal Register, 38(30),
.1113-4414.
U.S, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Guidelines on employee selection
procedures. Federal Resister, 35(149),12333-12336.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Job discrimination? Laws and rules
yoou should know. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, (1974).
Texts: Statistics
Downie, N. M. & Health, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods (4th ed.). New York: Harper
& Row, (1974).
Edwards. A. L. Statistical Analysis (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
(1974).
Guilford, J. P. & Fruchter, B. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education
(nth ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, (1973).
Texts: Selection
Anastasi, A. Psychological Testing (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan. 1976.
Brown, F. G. Principles of Education and Psychological Testing. Hinsdale, Illinois:
The Dryden Press, 1970.
Campbell, J. P., Dunnette. M.I)., Lawler, E. E. & Weick, K. E. Managerial Behavior.
Performance, and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
Cronbach, L. Essentials of Psychological Testing (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row,
1 A 70.
Cronbach, L. J. & Gleser, G. C. Psychological Tests and Personnel Decisions. Chicago:
I niversity of Illinois Press, 1965.
Dunnette, M. D. Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology. Chicago,
Iilinois: Rand-McNally, 1975.
Dunnette, M. D. Personnel Selection and Placement, Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Co., 1966.
Ghiselli, E. E. The Validity of Occupational Aptitude Tests. New York: Wiley & Sons.
14 V'16.
Guion, R. E. Personnel Testing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
BIBLIOGRAPHY ON TESTING 77
Kirkpatrick, J. J., Ewen, R. B. Barrett, R. S. & Katzell, R. A. Testing and Fair
Employment. New York: New York University Press, 1968.
Lawshe, C. H. & Balma, J. J. Principles of Personnel Testing (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1966.
McCormick, E. J. & Tiffin, J. Industrial Psychology (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Osburn, H. G. & Manese, W. R. How to Install and Validate Employee Selection
Techniques (Report No. 753). Washington, D.C.: American Petroleum Institute,
1972.
Legal Aspects of Testing
Anonymous. Employment discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Harvard Law Review, (1971), 84,1109-1316.
Anonymous. Legal implications of the use of standardized ability tests in employment
and education. Columbia Law Review, (1968), 68, 691-744.
Blumrosen, A. Strangers in Paradise: Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and the concept of
employment discrimination. Michigan Law Review, (1972), 71, 59-110.
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Fair Employment Practice Cases (18 Vols.).
Washington, D.C.: Author, 1978.
Byham, W. C. & Spitzer, M. E. The Law and Personnel Testing. American
Management Association, 1971.
Commerce Clearing House, Inc. Employment Practices Decisions (15 Vols.). Chicago,
Ill.: Author, 1978.
Cooper, G. Introduction: Equal Employment Law Today. Columbia Human Rights
Law Review, (1973),5,263-279.
Cooper, G. & Sobol, R. B. Seniority and Testing Under Fair Employment Laws: A
General Approach to Objective Criteria of Hiring and Promotion, Harvard Law
Review, (1969), 82(8),1598-1679.
Copus, D. Appallate Court Decisions Involving Use of Statistics in Job Bias Cases.
Daily Labor Report (BNA), November 23,1976, No. 227, D1-D4.
Erwin F. The New OFCCP Guidelines: What Happened? The Personnel Administra-
tor, (1977),22(2),30-34.
Holley, W.D. & Field, H.S. Performance Appraisal and the Law. Labor Law Journal,
July (1975), 423-430.
Miner, M. Equal Employment Opportunity: Programs & Results. (PPF Survey No.
112). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, (1976).
Miner, M & Miner, J. Employee Selection Within The Law. Washington, D.C.: Bureau
of National Affairs, 1978.
Morris, F. Current Trends in .the Use (and Misuse) of Statistics in Employment
Discrimination Litigation. Equal Employment Advisory Council, (1977).
Note, Development in the Law: Employment Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964,84 Harvard Law Review (1971).
Rock, D. A. Motivation, Moderators and Test Bias. Toledo Law Review, (1970), 527-537.
Ruch, F. L. Critical notes on "Seniority and Testing Under Fair Employment laws," by
Cooper and Sobel in the Harvard Law Review, June, 1969. The Industrial
Psychologist, 1970, 7, 13-25.
Ruch, F. L. & Ash, P. Comments on Psychological Testing. Columbia Law Review,
(1969),69,608-618.
Schlei, B. & Grossman, P. Employment Discrimination Law. Washington, D.C.:
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 1976.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
78 BIBLIOGRAPHY ON TESTING
Sharf, J. A lawyer's guide to testing practices and procedures. In K. McGovern (Ed.),
In Equal Employment Opportunity Practice Guide. Washington, D.C.: Subcommit-
aee on Publications, Federal Bar Association, (1977).
Sharf, J. Bibliography on Fair Employment Practices Testing. Daily labor Reports
(BNA), 1975, No. 66,18-22.
S'Shaarf, J. Fair Employment Implications for HRD: The Case of Washington v. Davis.
'Training and Development Journal, February 1977, 31(2),16-21.
Sharf, J. The prima facie case: Keeping Title VII honest. In K. McGovern (Ed.), An
Equal Employment Practice Guide. Washington, D.C.: Subcommittee on Publica-
;.ions, Federal Bar Association, 1978.
Overviews & Reviews
American Psychological Association Task Force on Employment Testing of Minority
Groups. Job Testing and the Disadvantaged. American Psychologist, (1969), 24, 637-
650.
A uuderson, B. R. & Rogers, M. P. (eds.). Personnel Testing and Equal Employment
Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.
A ;h, P. The Implications of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for Psychological Assessment
in Industry. American Psychologist, (1966), 21, 797-803.
A,h, P. & Kroeker, L. Personnel Selection, Classification and Placement. In Annual
Review of Psychology (Vol. 26). Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1975.
Bickel, P. J., Hammel, E. A., & O'Connell, J. W. Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions:
Data from Berkeley. Science, (1975), 187 (4175), 398-403.
Bray, D. W. & Moses, J. L. Personnel Selection. In Annual Review of Psychology (Vol.
"3). Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1972.
B=iros, O. K. (Ed.). Personality Tests and Reviews. Highland Park, N.J.: Gryphon
Press, 1970.
Biiros, O. K. (Ed). Tests in Print. Highland Park, N.J.: Gryphon Press, 1961.
B?iros, O.K. (Ed.). The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.:
Gryphon Press. 1972.
E neis, W. H. Minority Employment Barriers from the EEOC Viewpoint. Professional
1.'sychology, (1970),1,483-489.
Fincher, G. Personnel testing and Public Policy. American Psychologist, (1973), 28,
181-500.
(,neral Motors Corporation Law Library. Bibliography of Reference Sources on
Employment Testing Under Title VII (Report 92). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
National Affairs, 1974.
Guion, R. M. Employment 'rests and Discriminatory Hiring. Industrial Relations,
(1966),5,20-37.
Miner, J. B. Psychological Testing and Fair Employment Practices: A Testing
Program 'that Does Not Discriminate, Personnel Psychology, (1974),27,49-62.
19/4 Guidebook to Fair Employment Practices. Chicago: Commerce Clearing House,
1974.
The 1974 Civil Rights Law and Your Business. Englewood-Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1974.
U .S. Civil Service Commission. Selected References on Employee Selection With
Emphasis on Testing the Disadvantaged. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1972.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
BIBLIOGRAPHY ON TESTING 79
Job Analysis
Bouchard, T.J. A Manual for Job Analysis. St. Paul, Minn.: Minnesota Civil Service
Dept., 1972.
Fine, S. A. & Wiley, W. W. An Introduction to Functional Job Analysis. Washington,
D.C.: W. E. Upjohn Institute, 1971.
McCormick, E. J., Jeanneret, P. R. & Mecham, R. C. A study of job characteristics and
job dimensions as based on the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). Journal of
Applied Psychology Monograph, (1972), 56(4), 347-368.
Mussio, S.J. & Smith, M. K. Content Validity: A Procedural Manual. Chicago:
International Personnel Management Association, 1973.
Prien, E. P. & Ronan, W. H. Job Analysis: A review of research findings. Personnel
Psychology, (1971), 24, 371-396.
Primoff, E. S. Summary of Job Element Principles: Preparing a Job Element
Standard (Bureau of Policies & Standards). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Civil Service
Commission, 1971.
State of Wisconsin, Selection-oriented Job Analysis Procedures. Madison, Wise.: State
Bureau of Personnel, 1972.
U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Task Analysis Inventories.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.
Psychological Literature
Bartlett, C. J., Bobko, P., Mosier, S.B., & Hannan, R. Testing for Fairness With a
Moderated Multiple Regression Strategy: An Alternative to Differential Analysis.
Personnel Psychology, (1978), 31, 233-242.
Boehm. V. R. Negro-White Differences in Validity of Employment and Training
Selection Procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, (1972), 56, 33-39.
Cronbach, L. J. Five Decades of Public Controversy Over Mental Testing. American
Psychologist, (1975), 30,1-14.
Fincher, C. Differential Validity and Test Bias. Personnel Psychology, (1975), 28(4),
481-500.
Gavin, J. & Toole, D. Validity of Aptitude Tests for the "Hardcore Unemployed."
Personnel Psychology, (1973), 26, 139-146.
Humphreys, L. G. Individual Differences. In Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 24).
Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1973.
Lawshe, C. H. A Quantitative Approach to Content Validity. Personnel Psychology,
(1975),28(4),563-576.
Ramsay, R. & Mobley, W. Hierarchial Clustering on the Basis of Inter-Job Similarity
as a Tool in Validity Generalization. Personnel Psychology, (1973), 26, 213-235.
Sparks, C. Validity of Psychological Tests. Personnel Psychology, (1970), 23, 39-46.
Taylor, L. R. Empirically Derived Job Families as a Foundation for the Study of
Validity Generalization: Study I-the Construction of Job Families Based on the
Component and Overall Dimensions of the PAQ Job Dimensions. Personnel
Psychology, (19781, 31, 325-340.
Taylor, L. R., & Colbert, G. A. Empirically Derived Job Families as a Foundation for
the Study of Validity Generalization: Study II-the Construction of Job Families
Based on the company-specific PAQ job dimensions. Personnel Psychology, (1978),
31, 341-354.
Colbert, G. A., & Taylor, L. R. Empirically derived job families as a foundation for the
study of validity generalization: Study III-Generalization of selection test validity.
Personnel Psychology, (1978), 31, 355-364.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDP00-01458R000100110002-8
80 BIBLIOGRAPHY ON "NESTING
Test Fairness
Boehm, V. R. Negro-white differences in validity of employment and training
selection procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, (1972) 56, 33-39.
Campbell, J. T., et al, An Investigation of Sources of Bias in the Prediction of Job
Performance: A six-year Study (Final Report No. 73-37). Princeton, N.J.:
Educational Testing Service, 1973.
Cleary, T. A. Test bias: Prediction of grades of negro and white students in integrated
colleges. Journal of Educational Measurement, (1968), 5,115-123.
Cole, N. S. Bias in selection. Journal of Educational Measurement, (1973), 10, 237.
Darlington, R. B. Another look at "cultural fairness". Journal of Educational
Measurement, (1971), 8, 71-82.
Einhorn, N.J. & Bass, A. R. Methodological considerations relevant to discrimination in
e=oployment testing. Psychological Bulletin, (1971),75,261-269.
Flaugher, R. L. Testing practices, minority groups, and higher education: A review
and discussion of research. (Research Bulletin 70-41). Princeton, N.J.: Educational
Te!sting Service, 1970.
Linn. R. L. Fair test use in selection. Review of Educational Research, (1973), 43, 139-
1>ll.
Linn, R.L. & Werts, C.E. Considerations for studies of test bias. Journal of
Educational Measurement, (1971), 8, 1-4.
Peterson, N. S. & Novick, M. R. An evaluation of some models for test bias (Bulletin
2:3). Iowa City, Iowa: American College Testing Program, 1974.
O'Leary, B. S., Farr, J. L. & Bartlett, C. J. Ethnic group membership as a moderator
of job performance. Silver Spring, Md.: Am. Inst. Research, 1970.
Schmidt, F. L., Berner, J. G. & Hunter, J. E. Racial differences in validity of
employment tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, (1973),58,5-9.
Schmidt, F.L. & Hunter, J.E. Moderator research and the law of small numbers.
Personnel Psychology, (1978),31,215-232.
Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. Racial and ethnic bias in psychological tests. American
l?sychologist, (1974), 26(1),1-8.
Thorndike, R. L. Concepts of culture-fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement,
(1971), 8,63-70.
Approved For Release 2001/11/07 : CIA-RDPOO-01458R000100110002-8
 AWMdaNOrR>b >nNIN-1hCLAR IpD64Hi RZM1"ulo2EB
Opportunity
Books
Black Labor and the American Legal System (1977)
by Herbert I till
This study is the first volume of a comprehensive two-volume history of the evolu-
tion of American law on employment discrimination. Volume 1, Race, Work, and the
Law, covers the period from the abolition of slavery to just prior to the enactment of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Volume II, The Developing Law of Equal
Employment Opportunity, considers the legislative history of Title VII and examines
the statute as amended. Volume I ......................................... $17.50
Volume II, in preparation.
Employment Discrimination Law (1976)
by Barbara Lindemann Schlei and Paul Grossman
This comprehensive casebook/treatise deals with the provisions of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. It
presents major cases, analyzes the issues in employment discrimination law, and
provides strategy suggestions for attorneys. While intended primarily for lawyers
and law students, the book has substantial value for others with responsibilities for
compliance. A 1979 supplement is in preparation . ........................ $39.50
Employee Selection Within the Law (1978)
by Mary Green Miner and John B. Miner
This book explains how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 affects employee selection and
testing procedures. Topics include EEOC guidelines, the use of statistics, validation
of selection procedures, court interpretation of the law, and the development of
ffective selection techniques ............................................. $15.00
Primer of Equal Employment Opportunity (1978)
by Howard J. Anderson
This valuable booklet provides a concise overview of the law of equal employment
opportunity, followed by detailed explanations of the coverage and provisions of
federal antidiscrimination statutes and executive orders and of the procedures for
their administration and enforcement . ..................................... $5.00
Services
Affirmative Action Compliance Manual for Federal Contractors
Includes a News and Developments report plus two office of Federal Contract
Compliance program manuals and excerpts from other official government com-
pliance manuals. Updated as changes and additions received from federal agen-
cies. Indexed.
EEOC Compliance Manual
Provides a Summary of Latest Developments and a photographic text of the official
EEOC operations manual. Among the major subjects covered by the manual are
compliance procedures, interpretation suggestions for EEOC investigators, and
conciliation standards. Supplemented. Indexed.
Fair Employment Practice Service
A notification and reference service for federal and state laws on equal opportunity
in employment. Provides full texts of federal and state FEP laws, orders, and
regulations, as well as federal, state, and local court opinions and decisions of the
EEOC. Biweekly supplements and newsletter. Indexed. The Approved FoB e
/rt1b=58000100110002-8
~t s Yon, 0037