UNIFORM GUIDELINES ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 106
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 22, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 1, 1979
• Content Type: REQ

Approved For Relee 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R009300050001-8
16 December 1981 Memo to D/Pers from C/PPS/OP; Subject:
Phase II Implementation of the Uniform Guidelines
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved Flo- Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-0144R000300050001-8
9 January 1980
undated
22 January 1980
22 January 1980
23 January 1980
24 January 1980
28 January 1980
29 January 1980
30 January 1980
30 January 1980
20 February 1980
19 March 1980
28 April 19
29 December 1980
5 January 1981
16 January 1981
Memo to DD'S, Compt and D/EEO from DDCI
re Task Force Report on Uniforom Guidelines
on Employee Selection Procedures
DDS&T Comments on Task Force Report
Comptroller Comments on Task Force Report
DDA Comments on Task Force Report
Memo to C/Uniform Guidelines Task Force from
D/PersPP&M re OPPPM being inadvertently overlooked
in the request for comments on the Task Force Report.
D/EEO Conments on Task Force Report
DDO Comments on Task Force Report
NFAC Coments on Task Force Report
Memo to DD's, D/EEO and Comptroleer re
Summary of Comemnts on Task Force Report
Memo to EXCOM Member from SA/DDCI re Agenda.
for EXCCM Meeting of 6 February 1980
Memo from SA/DDCI forwarding DDCI approval
of Uniform Guidelines Implementation Plan
Memo to D/EEO fr D/OTR: Subject; Uniform Guidelines
Memo to DDCI fr D/EEO; Subject: Definition of
"Applicant"
Memo to D/PPPM from C/PS/OPPPN; subject:
Implementation Plan for Uniform Guidelines -.
Phase II Responsibilities
Memo to D/EEO and D/PPPM from D/OT&E; subject:
Uniform Guidelines Training Prggram
Memo to DDCI from D,EEO; Subject:
Uniform Guidelines Implementation Plan - Phase II
Responsibilities
24 March 1981 Memo to D/PPPM fr DD/PA&E; Subject:
Implementation Plan for Uniform Guidelines -
Approved For Release M068/14: O'f)08/14 : CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
UNIFORM GUIDELINES ON
EMPLOYEE SELECTION
PROCEDURES
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Uniform Guidelines: Brief Summary Page 1
The Task Force: Composition and Approach Page 3
Phase I: Overview and Recommendations Page 5
Phase II: Overview and Recommendations Page 19
TABS A through J
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES: BRIEF SUMMARY
The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures went
into effect 25 September 1978 and became part of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The Uniform Guidelines were issued jointly by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department
of Labor, and Department of Justice to meet the need in the Federal
Government for a uniform set of principles governing the use of tests
and other personnel selection procedures and to assist employers to
comply with requirements of Federal law prohibiting employment practices
which discriminate on grounds of race, color, religion, sex and
national origin.
The Uniform Guidelines require, inter alia, that an employer
"maintain and have available for inspection records that disclose
for each job or job category the impact its selection procedures
have upon Employment opportunities of persons by identifiable sex,,
race or ethnic group. . ." (By "selection procedures" is meant any
selection procedure used as a basis for any employment decision,
such as hiring, promotion, demotion, retention, etc.) If it is
determined that the total selection process for a job or job category
has an adverse impact, the employer is required to identify the
element (e.g., test, interview, etc.) causing the adverse impact and
(1) eliminate that element, (2) modify its use to lessen the adverse
impact, or (3) justify its use as a business necessity by a specified
validation strategy, a highly technical and complex procedure. A
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
copy of both the Uniform Guidelines and supplemental Questions and
Answers is at Tab A. Supplemental information on the history and
requirements of the Uniform Guidelines is at Tab B; specific informa-
tion regarding the determination of adverse impact by application of
the "four-fifths rule" and validation requirements is at Tabs C and D,
respectively.
The Uniform Guidelines apply in toto to the Central Intelligence
Agency under the provisions of section 717 of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended. As provided by the Act, Federal
departments and agencies are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction
of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) with regard to equal employment
opportunity in the Federal Government. Though the authorities and
responsibilities of the CSC regarding civil rights enforcement in the
Federal Government were recently transferred to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission by Reorganization Plan Number 1, the transfer
does not affect the applicability of the Uniform Guidelines to the
Agency. The General Counsel's position regarding this point may be
found-at Tab E.
-2-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
THE TASK FORCE: COMPOSITION AND APPROACH
. The Agency Task Force on Uniform Guidelines on Employment Selection
Procedures was formally established on 10 September 1979 at the direction
of the DDCI. The purpose of this Task Force was to examine the require-
ments of the Uniform Guidelines and to propose specific recommendations
for their implementation in the Agency. The Task Force was comprised
of two representatives from the Office of EEO, and one representative
each from the Offices of Personnel and Training. Representatives from
the Office of General Counsel and the Psychological Services Staff
served as advisors.
To better understand current employee selection procedures in the
Agency, the Task Force interviewed representatives from each of the
four Directorates, the DCI area, the Offices of Personnel, Training,-
Security, and Medical Services, the Inspector General's Staff and the
Career Trainee Program. Comments and recommendations contained in this
report were subsequently developed independently by the Task Force and
are based upon both our current understanding of Agency employee
selection policy and practices and of the particular requirements of
the Uniform Guidelines. Not incidentally, the Task Force wishes to
express its sincere appreciation for the excellent cooperation it
received from all Agency components.
A consensus reached early by the Task Force was that complete,
immediate implementation of the Uniform Guidelines by the Agency,
or any other Federal agency for that matter, is impossible. The
recordkeeping requirements alone introduce totally new and additional
-3-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
functions in the area of personnel administration. Our consequent
decision, then, was to attempt to devise a two-phased approach that would
bring the Agency essentially into Immediate compliance and yet allow
time to address some of the thornier issues raised by the Uniform Guidelines.
We should note that the phrase, "immediate compliance," represents
an early agreement by the Task Force that the recommendations in Phase I
would focus only on hires and promotions, selection procedures for which
are clearly specified as employment decisions by the Uniform Guidelines
and which activities are of major significance in terms of employee
concern and Agency resources. One aspect of Phase II considers the
question of whether there are other activities, such as training and
assignments, which should be considered employment decisions in the
context of the Uniform Guidelines.
The italicized quotations which accompany the recommendations
are relevant citations from the Uniform Guidelines or Uniform
Guidelines Questions and Answers.
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
EO (Chairman)
8TATI NTL OEEO
P
OTR
STATINTL Administrative Secretary
PSS/OMS (Advisor)
STATINTL
(Advisor)
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
PHASE I: OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations in Phase I. which are concerned with specific
functions that must be performed to meet the fundamental requirements
of the Uniform Guidelines, are formulated to provide Agency compliance
immediately upon implementation: policy is stated, recordkeeping begins,
data review procedures applied, evaluation techniques devised, informal
resolution provided for, and a review procedure for management options
established.
Accordingly, it is the position of the Task Force that implementation
of the recommendations in Phase I should begin immediately upon approval
by the Executive Committee.
-5-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
policy will, in addition to providing the why and how of the Uniform
Guidelines, also serve as a vehicle for promoting a positive approach
and cooperative effort toward the implementation process.
Recommendation 1
Policy Statement
The Task Force believes that the first step toward Agency im-
plementation of the Uniform Guidelines must begin with the publication
of a policy statement that outlines the purpose of the guidelines,
specifies the requirements to be met, and directs incorporation into
Agency personnel selection procedures. This initial statement of
Publish a Headquarters Notice on the initial
implementation of the Uniform Guidelines
requirements into Agency personnel selection
procedures.
A draft Headquarters Notice that may be used for this purpose is at
Tab F.
Recordkeeping
"Each user should maintain . . . records or other information
which will disdZose the impact which its tests and other selection
procedures have upon employment opportunities of persons by iden-
tifiable race, sex, or ethnic group . . .: Blacks (Negros), American
Indiana (including Alaskan Natives), Asians (including Pacific
Islanders), Hispanic (including persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican,
Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish origin or culture
regardless of race), whites (Caucasians) other than Hispanic, and
totals." (Section 4. A & B)
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
The Task Force has ascertained that the Agency presently is unable
to determine race and sex data on applicants other than by visual
observation or inferences drawn from information contained in the
Personal History Statement (PHS). Without a consistent data collection
system, adequate compliance with the recordkeeping requirements of
the Uniform Guidelines is impossible. The Task Force believes that
a workable and far more efficient method of collecting this information
is by voluntary self-identification by the prospective employee.
Recommendation 2
A self-identification sheet accompany the
PHS provided each prospective employee.
The self-identification sheet should in no way be part of the PHS.
It will contain a statement of its specific purpose, and must be removed
from the individual's file by the Office of Personnel immediately upon
a decision to reject or to hire. An example of a self-identification
sheet is at Tab G.
Applicant
"2'he precise definition of the term 'applicant' depends upon the
user's recruitment and selection procedures . . . . A person who
voluntarily withdraws formally or informally at any stage of the
selection process is no longer an applicant . . . for purposes of
computing adverse impact." (Q & A Z5)
So far as is known to the Task Force the term "applicant" is
neither defined uniformly nor applied consistently within the Agency.
The Uniform Guidelines in effect require that the meaning of the term
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
be defined operationally to establish a basis for the maintenance of
accurate records.
Recommendation 3
Define an "applicant" in the context of the Uniform
Guidelines as an individual whose file containing
a completed PHS and self-identification sheet is
reviewed by the interested Agency component (i.e.,
Office or Division).
There are several reasons for this recommendation. First, the
component considering an individual for Agency employment is in the
best position to conduct a thorough review of a file and thus render
the substantive decision as to rejection or selection. Second, the
component can best identify the job or job category for which an
'individual is being considered. This particular information is
essential, si.nce the race and sex information required by the Uniform
Guidelines must be keyed by occupational grouping. And third, such
a definition will promote accurate recordkeeping, particularly for
professionals, by fixing responsibility for the collection of
applicant flow data at the point of decision.
To meet the basic recordkeeping requirements of the Uniform
Guidelines for applicants, the Task Force makes the following
recommendations:
Recommendation 4
The Office of Personnel collect applicant flow
data (i.e., race and sex information) for all
clericals.
Recommendation 5
In the DCI area, the Career Trainee Program and
-8-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Directorates other than the Directorate of
Operations, the Office level components
concerned collect applicant flow data for
professionals and technicals by specific
Job category (i.e., occupational grouping,
such as Career Trainee, Economist, Electronic
Engineer, Security Officer).
Recommendation 6
In the Operations Directorate, the Career
Management Staff (CMS) collect applicant
flow data for professionals and technicals
other than Career Trainees by Category
(e.g., A. B, C, etc.).
The rationale underlying recommendations four, five and six is
as follows: selection for employment in the Agency is both centralized
and decentralized - - the former for clericals hired by the Office
of Personnel, the latter for professionals and technicals hired by
individual organizational components. We recognize, however, that
the primary professional input into the Operations Directorate is
essentially a centralized process through the Career Trainee Program
(CTP); nonetheless, we believe an accurate tracking of all CT
applicants can be better accomplished by establishing recordkeeping
responsibility within the CTP component itself.
Consideration of applicants for the CTP introduces another factor
into the recordkeeping equation, that is, whether to distinguish
between "staff" applicants and "contract" applicants, the latter such
as for the CTP. The Uniform Guidelines are silent on this point;
however, to have implementation work in consonance with the spirit:
of the Uniform Guidelines, as well as to facilitate recordkeeping,
the Task Force believes that:
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Recommendation 7
No distinction be made between applicants
for staff employment and applicants for
regularly scheduled contract employment.
The Task Force has determined that there are two distinct steps
involved in Agency employment that must be considered in the context
of the Uniform Guidelines: (1) initial selection to put in process
and (2) final selection for entry-on-duty. We believe it necessary,
therefore, that recordkeeping account for these steps.
Recommendation 8
Applicant flow data be maintained by
components in such a way that reflects:
(1) the number of applicants put in
process compared to the number of
applicants considered and (2) the number
of applicants selected for entry-on-duty
compared to the number of applicants put
in process.
The same form may be used by components for monitoring both steps
in the employment process. An example of such a form is at Tab H.
The Task Force has determined that medical examinations and
security clearance procedures are part of the total selection
process for Agency employment. We believe such procedures must be
monitored by race and sex. We understand that the Office of
Personnel is routinely notified of medical and security rejections.
These considerations lead to:
Recommendation 9
- 10 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
The Office of Personnel collect data by race
and sex on all applicants rejected for medical
and security reasons.
As specified by the Uniform Guidelines, applicants who voluntarily
withdraw from consideration for Agency employment should not be counted.
Accordingly, entries for such applicants would be removed from component
applicant flow data.
Promotions
The recordkeeping requirements of the Uniform Guidelines
concerning promotions can, in the opinion of the Task Force, be
implemented in a relatively straightforward manner.
Recommendation 10
Race and sex information be collected by the
appropriate Career Service or component
according to grade and job category for all
employees considered for promotion.
The information collected will indicate by race and sex the number
of employees considered and the number of employees promoted. An
example of this form is at Tab I.
It is understood that this information will under no circumstances
be divulged to the promotion board or panel concerned either before or
after its deliberations and will be held in strict confidence by the
responsible unit.
Data Collection
Recommendation 11
Data on applicant flow and promotions collected
by components be forwarded monthly to the
Directorate level for consolidation.
- 11 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Recommendation 12
Each Directorate and independent office in
the DCI area after consolidating the infor-
mation, forward one copy of both the consol-
dated report and component reports quarterly
to the Office of EEO for determination of
possible adverse impact and one copy of each
to the Office of Personnel for monitoring
of data.
The Task Force believes that the collection of race and sex data
in this manner will not only facilitate the overall recordkeeping
process but also provide Directorates with the opportunity for informal
review.
Implementation
The recordkeeping requirements of the Uniform Guidelines, while
introducing an additional task for each procedure related to the
selection for employment or promotion, can, in the view of the Task
Force, be accomplished by a relatively simple paper-and-pencil method.
In our view, therefore, attendant costs to the Agency will be in terms
of time rather than personnel. Accordingly, we believe that no
additional personnel or personnel positions will be required to bring
the Agency into compliance.
The recordkeeping required by the Uniform Guidelines, once
implemented, will reflect with increasing accuracy the Agency's
applicant flow and promotion data, and, in the view of the Task Force,
will supplement the operation of the Agency's Minority Employment:
Coordinator (MEC) system. In this regard, to preclude possible
duplication of effort, we believe that:
12 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Recommendation 13
The MEC function in the Office of Personnel
should operate as an adjunct to the OP
Screening Panel.
In a similar context, the Task Force believes that monitoring by
race and sex prior to applicant consideration (for example, as part of
the recruitment process) is necessary for "pre-applicant" accounting.
Accordingly,
Recommendation 14
Race and sex data on all applications received
be collected by the Office of Personnel Screening
Panel and reviewed by Director of Personnel and
Director of Equal Employment Opportunity periodically
to detect potential imbalance in the pre-applicant
screening process.
the total selection process for that job has an adverse impact on
Determination of Adverse Impact
"A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is
less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the
group with the highest rate Will generally be regarded by the Federal
enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact . . . ." (Section 3D)
"Users of selection procedures . . . should maintain and have
available for each job records or other information showing whether
any of the groups for which records are called for . . . . Adverse
impact determinations should be made at least annually . . ."
(Section ZSA (2) (a))
Recommendation 15
The Director of Equal Employment Opportunity
be responsible for the application of the 80%
rule and the determination of whether there may
be adverse impact for the total selection process
- 13 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8 .
and for informing all appropriate officials.
The Uniform Guidelines, though impacting heavily on personnel
selection procedures, remain essentially a Baedeker for Equal
Employment Opportunity. In the view of the Task Force, therefore,
the Director, EEO is logically the Agency officer who should be
responsible for determining whether adverse impact exists, proposing
informal resolution, and ensuring Agency compliance with the Uniform
Guidelines. This responsibility does not, however, attenuate the
responsibility of the Director of Personnel for the collection and
monitoring of personnel data; rather, the Task Force sees this aspect
of Uniform Guidelines implementation in the Agency as providing an
opportunity for the Director of EEO and the Director of Personnel
to work closely in a cooperative effort to identify adverse impact
and remedy its causes.
Evaluation of Adverse Impact
"Once an employer has established that there is adverse impact.
the employer can modify or eliminate the procedure which produces the
adverse impact, thus taking the selection procedure from the coverage
of these guide tines. if the employer does not do that, then it must
justify the use of the procedure on grounds of 'business necessity'.
This normally means that it must show a clear relation between per-
formance on the selection procedure and performance on the job. In
the language of industrial psychology, the employer must validate the
selection procedure." (Overview, IV)
- 14 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Recommendation 16
If adverse impact exists, the Director, EEO
at his discretion appoint a trained EEO
Specialist to conduct an evaluation of the
total selection process of the job category
concerned.
Before any action can be taken to correct a situation of adverse
impact, it Is necessary to identify the particular element of the total
selection process causing the adverse impact. There are specialists in
the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity already trained and serving
as discrimination complaints investigators. These investigators can
readily be trained to evaluate selection procedures in the context of
the Uniform-Guidelines, to identify the specific element causing the
adverse impact, and to prepare a report of findings and recommendations
for the Director of Equal Employment Opportunity.
When a determination is made that adverse impact is caused by
a particular selection procedure, the investigator, during the evaluation
process, will be gathering information that could be an essential part
of a validation strategy to justify a particular procedure as "business
necessity". It is thus imperative that only specific, job-related
reasons be recorded for the non-selection of an applicant for Agency
employment. Vague statements, such as "no component interest" and "will
wait on better cnadidate", are unacceptable under the validation criteria
requirements of the Uniform Guidelines.
Recommendation 17
A responsible officer in the reviewing component
be required to give specific, job-related reasons
for non-selection of an applicant.
- 15 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
An example of a form that could be used for this purpose is, at
Tab J.
Resolution of Adverse Impact Problems
Members of the Task Force differed in their opinions as to the
procedures which should be established for the resolution of adverse
impact problems. Therefore alternatives are presented.
Recommendation 18
Upon receipt of an adverse impact evaluation
report, the Director of Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity take such action as appropriate to
resolve the problem causing the adverse impact.
As in the discrimination complaint process, the Director of Equal
Employment Opportunity should have the flexibility necessary to work
with organizational components to resolve adverse impact problems.
Such an approach may lead to the elimination or modification of the
problem causing adverse impact, or the initiation of a validation
strategy to Justify the procedure. If the Director of Equal Employment
Opportunity and the component concerned are unable to effect resolution,
the D/EEO may require the appropriate Deputy Director or Head of
Independent Office to select one of the remedies required by the Uniform
Guidelines. Should a Deputy Director or Head of Independent Office
with to appeal this requirement,
Recommendation 19
Within ten working days from date of notification,
an appeal to the DDCI may be made by the concerned
Deputy Director or Head of Independent Office.
Alternatives to Recommendations 18 and 19 follow:
- 16 -
Approved for Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Alternative Recommendation 18.
Upon receipt of an adverse impact evaluation
report, the Director of Equal Employment
Opportunity take such action as appropriate
toward the informal resolution of the problem
causing the adverse impact.
If the Director of Equal Employment Opportunity and the component
concerned are unable to effect resolution, the D/EEO may r2 quest. the
appropriate Deputy Director to select one of the measures (e.g.,
elimination or validation of the procedure in question) required by the
Uniform Guidelines.
Alternative Recommendation 19
An Adverse Impact Review Board be established to
review cases regarding adverse impact that are
formally submitted by the D/EEO and to recommend
to the DOCI which of the measures required by
the Uniform Guidelines should be taken by the
component concerned. The Board will be comprised
of the General Counsel, the Comptroller, and the
Inspector General, with the Director of Personnel
and Chief, Psychological Services Staff serving as
non-voting advisors.
Only those cases of adverse Impact that cannot be resolved informally
would be submitted by the Director of Equal Employment Opportunity for
Board review. At the discretion of the Board, information could be
obtained from any Agency official concerned.
The Board in its composition provides for high-level management
review and promotes objectivity in the adverse impact review process.
There is the possibility that, in some extraordinary circumstance,
it may be advantageous to the Agency to send an adverse impact case
directly to the DDCI for final decision in lieu of its submission to
- 17 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
the Board. Accordingly,
Alternative Recommendation 19A
By agreement of the Director of Equal Employment
Opportunity, the Deputy Director concerned, and
the DDCI, an adverse impact case may be presented
directly to the DDCI.
Regardless of the set of recommendations approved for the resolution
of adverse impact problems, the DDCI will be the final authority.
Recommendation 2O
The DDCI make the final decision in the formal
resolution of adverse impact cases and direct
the implementation of that decision.
- 18 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
PHASE II: OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Certain requirements of the Uniform Guidelines are somewhat
unclear as to specific meaning (e.g., "employment decisions") while
others entail considerable complexity in implementation. In this
section the Task Force has addressed these requirements; such
issues as alternative selection procedures, testing, Job analysis,
and enforcement agency review are dealt with.
The recommendations in Phase II differ somewhat from those in
Phase I in that management responsibility, rather than specific
function, is the primary concern. Though the Agency will have
some flexibility as to the time frame for completion of the actions
implicit in these recommendations, the Task Force wishes to emphasize
that these issues, and their resolution, are in no absolute-sense
less urgent than the actions proposed in Phase I. Accordingly, we
believe that implementation of these recommendations should begin
no later than 1 October 1981 (FY 82).
- 19 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Employment Decisions
"The guideZ?ines apply to tests and other selection procedures
which are used as a basis for any employment decision . . . [which
include but are not limited to hiring, promotion, demotion . . .
retention . . . Other selection decisions, such as selection for training
and transfer, may also be considered employment decisions if they Zead
to any of the decisions listed above" (Section 2 B).
As noted earlier, the Task Force has determined that the recording
by race and sex of selection for employment and promotion effectively
brings the Agency into compliance with the Uniform Guidelines. Much
discussion in the Task Force, however, dealt with the question of under
what circumstances and to what extent does selection for training and
transfer (assignment) "lead" to an employment decision (e.g., promotion).
The Task Force notes that the Uniform Guidelines were drafted by
an ad hoc group comprised of representatives from the competitive civil
service. Naturally, selection procedures in the competitive civil service
would be reflected (e.g., selection for a specific, rank-in-the-position
vacancy in which promotion is virtually automatic). Selection for
reassignment in the Agency, however, does not in itself guarantee
advancement without other, perhaps even more important, factors (e.g.,
adequate on-the-job performance). Just how selection for certain
training would lead to an employment decision is even more problematical.
In a very broad sense, all training courses, programs, or workshops
could conceivably lead to promotion opportunities. However, training
selection procedures vary widely from Directorate to Directorate, and
Approved For Release 2001/08/114`:0CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
enrollment is affected by the basic prerequisites established by the
Office of Training or the sponsoring component, availability of space,
and availability of the employee.
The Task Force believes that compliance with the Uniform Guidelines
will ultimately require the determination of how training is related to
career development and what kind of training leads to promotion
opportunities. In any event, selection for training is an issue raised
by the Uniform Guidelines and must be addressed by the Agency.
Therefore, the Task Force ultimately concluded that this particular
application of the Uniform Guidelines, with its inherent ambiguity,
required far more time for research and discussion than was available.
Recommendation 21
The Director of Personnel and the Director of Equal
Employment Opportunity be responsible for determining
when selection for "transfer" (i.e., assignment,
including vacancy notices),demotion and retention
in the Agency is an employment decision under the
Uniform Guidelines.
Similarly,
Recommendation 22
The Director of Training and the Director of Equal
Employment Opportunity be responsible for determining
when selection for "training" in the Agency is an
employment decision under the Uniform Guidelines.
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 demonstrated to have the Lesser
- 21 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
adverse impact. Accordingly, whenever a validity study is called for
by these guidelines, the user should include, as part of the validation
study, an investigation of suitable alternative selection procedures
and suitable alternative methods of using the selection procedure which
have as little adverseimpact as possible, to determine the appropriateness
of using or validating them in accord with these guidelines" (Section 3 B).
The citation above is one of the most controversial requirements
contained in the Uniform Guidelines, commonly referred to as "the cosmic
search" by its detractors. Nevertheless, it is a requirement, and the
Task Force believes that consideration by the Agency of alternatives
to tests and alternative methods of using tests and other selection
procedures should commence well in advance of required validation.. An
indication of the possible Judicial significance of this requirement is
shown in the recent case of Allen v. City of Mobile, 18 FEP cases 217
(S. D., Alabama, 1978) in which the court ruled against the defendant
who, even though he had presented a content-valid testing procedure,
had not included as part of that validation study either "alternative
methods of selection procedures or alternative ways of utilizing the
existing examination. . ." (18 FEP cases 223).
The search for alternatives is at the cutting edge of knowledge
in the area of personnel selection research, and the task will not
be easy. Much more research is needed on potential alternatives such
as interviews, training, recruitment, and biographical data. Despite
the difficulty, it is the opinion of the Task Force that the Agency's
beginning such research now will preclude potential problems in
- 22 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
validation efforts later.
Recommendation 23
The Director of Equal Employment Opportunity,
the Director of Personnel and the Chief,
Psychological Services Staff be Jointly
responsible for initiating a program of
research into alternative selection procedures
and methods.
Agency Testing Policy
The discussion concerning the search for alternative selection
procedures leads naturally into a consideration of the need for a
comprehensive policy on testing in the Agency. A case in point is
our understanding that some components of the Directorate of Science
and Technology do not in practice use the PATB as a selection tool for
professional applicants. The effect of this practice essentially is that
this Directorate already employs? other selection devices (e.g.,
professional qualifications) as alternatives to testing.
In the view of the Task Force, the issue is not whether the PATB
or any other test should or should not be used as a selection tool,
but is rather the need for a definitive statement of Agency policy that
specifies what tests may be used, under what circumstances, and
who has the authority for the option to use or not use testing in the
total selection process.
In the opinion of the Task Force, the current Agency policy on
testing, has been overtaken by the requirements of the STATINTL
Uniform Guidelines. For example, the Uniform Guidelines state:
"Users should provide a reasonable opportunity for retesting
and reconsideration . . . . The user may however take reasonable
- 23 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
steps to preserve the seeurvty of its procedures" (Section Z2).
This point is not covered in current policy.
A truly comprehensive policy statement would address not only this
particular requirement but also more fundamental issues such as overall
test application, specification of affected Agency components or
employees, test interpretation and use of test results (in effect,
alternative methods), and strategies employed in test validation. Such
a statement would provide crucially needed guidance to Agency employees
invovled in testing.
Recommendation 24
The Chief, Psychological Services Staff, the
Director of Training, and the Director of
Personnel be responsible for the formulation
of a comprehensive testing policy to be
coordinated with the Director of Equal
Employment Opportunity and incorporated
into the Headquarters Regulations.
Job Analysis
Upon a finding of adverse impact in the Agency, there will
undoubtedly be a decision to validate the particular selection procedure
in many, if not most, circumstances. If either a content or construct
validation strategy is used, the Uniform Guidelines require that a job
analysis be performed (Sections 14 C(2) and D(2) ). If a criterion-related
validation strategy is used, there must still be "a review of job
information to determine measures of work behavior(s) or performance
that are relevant to the job or group of jobs in question" (Section Z4 B(2)).
A job analysis is defined by the Uniform Guidelines as "a detailed
statement of work behaviors and other information relevant to the job"
(Section 46 K).
- 24 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Even apart from the Uniform Guidelines, it would be difficult for
the Task Force to overstate the importance of job analysis to personnel
research and administration in all organizations. Job analysis,
thoroughly conducted, provides a deeper understanding of individual jobs
and their behavioral requirements and thus constitutes a firm basis
on which to make job-related decisions. We also note that the Supreme
Court ruled In Albermarle Paper Company V. Moody, 422 US 405 (1975)
that a validation study that purports to demonstrate a relationship
between a selection procedure (e.g., test, interview, etc.) and job
performance is materially defective without adequate job analysis.
This requirement has been incorporated into the Uniform Guidelines.
It is beyond the scope of this report to delineate the salient
differences between a job analysis as required by the Uniform Guidelines
and a position description. A cursory review of the relevant literature
will show that job descriptions by definition and purpose do not adequately
account for job behaviors. (For example, M. D. Dunnette, Personnel
Selection and Placement, 1966, pp. 68-102 and B. J. Schneider, Staffing
Orga nizations, 1976, pp. 19-44) This is particularly manifest in job
descriptions of executive and managerial positions where incumbents
have considerable influence over their work activities, the percentage
of time which they allot to different- work activities, and the way in
which the activities are carried out. A job analysis in the broadest
sense is concerned with analyzing all work-related information and consists
first of defining a job in terms of its component tasks and then
discovering what it requires in terms of employee behaviors. Job
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
analysis is thus of critical importance both within and outside the
context of the Uniform Guidelines.
Recommendation 25
The Director of Personnel be responsible for
instituting a time-phased, comprehensive, and
systematic program for job analysis within;-.-
the Agency.
Management Traini,nc
Successful implementation of the Uniform Guidelines will depend
ultimately upon management's understanding and support of their purpose
and function. During Phase II, therefore, there should be established
a training. program in the Agency that would include, but not be limited
to, (1) briefing sessions attended by Personnel Officers, selecting
officials, Career Management Officers, and supervisors and managers to
explain the purpose and objectives of the Uniform Guidelines, to illustrate
recordkeeping techniques, and to discuss concepts such as adverse impact
and validation, and (2) corresponding segments on the Uniform Guidelines
incorporated into various training courses such as Fundamentals of
Supervision and Administration, the Management Seminar, the Senior
Seminar, the Mid-Career Course, the MEO Course and the Program on
Creative Management. Accordingly,
6
Reconmenda t,ion
The Directors of Training, Equal Employment
Opportunity, and Personnel be jointly
responsible for developing a Uniform
Guidelines training program.
Agency Po!
n The guidelines are designed to aid in the achievement of our nations
- 26 -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
goal of equal employment opportunity without discrimination on the grounds
of race, color, sex, religion or national origin. The Federal agencies
have adopted the Guidelines to provide a uniform set of principles
governing use of employee selection procedures which is consistent: with
applicable legal standards and validation standards generally accepted
by the psychological profession and which the Government will apply in
the discharge of its responsibilities." (Q. & A. Z)
Recommendation 27
The Director of Personnel be responsible for
the submission of an Agency regulation
that consolidates Agency policy on the
Uniform Guidelines.
In Phase I it is recommended that there be published a Headquarters
Notice directing initial implementation of the Uniform Guidelines. The
publication of a Headquarters Regulation early in Phase II.will provide
for a timely, permanent, more useful reference of Agency policy.
Review by Enforcement Agency
"Each user should maintain and have available for inspection records
or other information which will disclose the impact which its tests
and other selections procedures have upon employment opportunities of
persons by identifiable race, sex, or ethnic group . . . in order to
determine compliance with these guidelines." (Section 4 A)
A clear implication in the requirement cited above is that the
EEOC and other enforcement agencies have the unqualified prerogative
to review the personnel selection data collected by an organization.
We are not unaware, however, that ". . . the Director of Central
Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources
and methods from unauthorized disclosure [and] the Agency shall be
21
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
exempted from the provisions of . any other Zaw which require
the publication or disclosure of the organization, functions, names,
official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the
Agency . . ." [50 USC 403g]
The potential conflict between these provisions of the Uniform
Guidelines and statutory law is readily apparent, and, in the opinion
of the Task Force, must be resolved as expeditiously as possible.
Recommendation 28
The General Counsel be responsible for the
drafting in coordination with the Director
of Equal Employment Opportunity, Director
of Security and other appropriate officials
on the Agency's position concerning the
inspection by an enforcement agency of
Agency records or other information maintained
in compliance with the Uniform Guidelines.
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
TAB
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved Fo Iease 2001/08/14: CIA-pm ,11 Si5 25 -81978
D A DT 1\L
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION.
CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.
ADOPTION BY FOUR AGENCIES
OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES ON.
EMPLOYEE SELECTION
PROCEDURES (1978)
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/0$/?4RE8-01114R000300050001-8
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 Con-
stitution Avenue NW., Washington,
D.C. 20210, 202-523-9426.
Peter C. Robertson, Director, Office
of Policy Implementation, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion, 2401 E Street NW., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20506, 202-634-7060.
David L. Rose, Chief, Employment
Section, Civil Rights Division, De-
partment of Justice, 10th Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washing-
ton, 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, General Coun-
sel, 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
gy 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 regula-
tion. The Government's view was that
the employer's intent was irrelevant.
If tests or other practices had an ad-
verse 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 employer would have
to show that it fairly measured or pre-
dicted performance on the job. Other-
wise, it would not be considered to be
"professionally developed."
In succeeding years, the EEOC and
the Department of Labor provided
more extensive guidance which elabo-
rated upon these principles and ex-
panded the guidelines to emphasize all
selection procedures. In 1971 in Griggs
v. Duke Power Co., 3 the Supreme
Court announced the principle that
employer practices which had an ad-
verse impact on minorities and were
not justified by business necessity con-
stituted illegal discrimination under
title VII. Congress confirmed this in-
terpretation in the 1972 amendments
to title VII. The elaboration of these
principles by courts and agencies con-
tinued into the mid-1970's,4 but differ-
ences between the EEOC and the
other agencies (Justice, Labor, and
Civil Service Commission) produced
two different sets of guidelines by the
end of 1976.
With the advent of the Carter ad-
ministration in 1977, efforts were in-
tensified to produce a unified govern-
ment position. The following docu-
ment represents the result of that
effort. This introduction is intended to
assist those not familiar with these
matters to understand the basic ap-
proach of the uniform guidelines.
While the guidelines are complex and
technical, they are based upon the
principles which have been consistent-
ly upheld by the courts, the Congress,
and the agencies.
The following discussion will cite the
sections of the Guidelines which
embody these principles.
CHAPTER XIV-EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
.OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
PART 1607-UNIFORM GUIDELINES
ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCE-
DURES (1978)
Title 5-Administrative Personnel
CHAPTER I-CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION
PART 300-EMPLOYMENT
(GENERAL)
Title 28-Judicial Administration
CHAPTER I-DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
PART 50-STATEMENTS OF POLICY
Title 41-Public Contracts and
Property Management
CHAPTER 60-OFFICE OF FEDERAL
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PRO-
GRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
PART 60-3-UNIFORM GUIDELINES
ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCE-
DURES (1978)
Adoption of Employee Selection
Procedures
AGENCIES: Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission, Civil Service
Commission, Department of Justice
and Department of Labor.
ACTION: Adoption of uniform guide-
lines on employee selection procedures
as final rules by fpur agencies.
SUMMARY: This document sets forth
the uniform guidelines on employee
selection procedures adopted by the
Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission, Civil Service Commission, De-
partment of Justice, and the Depart-
ment of Labor. At present two differ-
ent sets of guidelines exist. The guide-
lines are intended to establish a uni-
form Federal position in the area of
prohibiting discrimination in employ-
ment practices on grounds of race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Cross reference documents are pub-
lished at 5 CFR 300.103(c) (Civil Serv-
ice Commission), 28 CFR 50.14 (De-
partment of Justice), 29 CFR Part
1607 (Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission), and 41 CFR Part 60-3
(Department of Labor) elsewhere in
this issue.
One problem that confronted the
Congress which adopted the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 involved the effect
of written preemployment tests on
equal employment opportunity. The
use of these test scores frequently
denied employment to minorities in
many cases without evidence 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 em-
ployees. Congress sought to strike a
balance which would proscribe dis-
crimination, but otherwise permit the
use of tests in the selection of employ-
ees. Thus, in title VII, Congress au-
thorized the use of "any professionally
developed ability test provided that
such test, its administration or action
upon the results is not designed, in-
tended or used to discriminate * * * ".1
At first, some employers contended
that, under this section, they could
use any test which had been developed
by at professional so long as they did
not intend to exclude minorities, even
if such exclusion was the consequence
of the use of the test. In 1966, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission (EEOC) adopted guidelines to
advise employers and other users what
the law and good industrial psycholo-
II. ADVERSE IMPACT
The fundamental principle underly-
ing the guidelines is that employer
policies or practices which have an ad-
verse impact on employment opportu-
nities of any race, sex, or ethnic group
are illegal under title VII and the Ex-
ecutive order unless justified by busi-
ness necessity.' A selection procedure
2See 35 U.S.L.W. 2137 (1966).
3401 U.S. 424 (1971).
'See, e.g., Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody,
422 U.S. 405 (1975).
'Griggs, note 3, supra; uniform guidelines
on employee selection procedures (1978),
section 3A, (hereinafter cited by section
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2N%&R :P8W 01114R000300050001-8
which has no adverse impact generally
does not violate title VII or the Execu-
tive order.6 This means that an em-
ployer may usually avoid the applica-
tion of the guidelines by use of proce-
dures which have no adverse impact.'
If adverse impact exists, it )rust be
justified on grounds of'business neces-
sity. Normally, this means by valida-
tion which demonstrates the relation
between the selection procedure and
performance on the job.
The guidelines adopt a "rule of
thumb" as a practical means of deter-
s mining adverse impact for use in en-
forcement proceedings. This rule is
known as the "%ths" or "80 percent"
rule.' It is not a legal definition of dis-
crimination, rather it is a practical
device to keep the attention of en-
forcement agencies on serious discrep-
ancies in hire or promotion rates or
other employment decisions, To deter-
mine whether a selection procedure
violates the "%ths rule", an employer
compares its hiring rates for different
groups. 'I But this rule of thumb cannot
be applied automatically. An employer
who has conducted an extensive re-
cruiting campaign may have a larger
than normal pool of applicants, and
the "4/%ths rule" might unfairly expose
it to enforcement proceedings.1? On
tion may have discouraged or "chilled"
applicants of particular groups from
applying because they believed appli-
cation would be futile. The application
of the "4/5ths" rule in that situation
would allow an employer to evade
scrutiny because of its own discrimina-
tion.11
III. IS ADVERSE IMPACT TO BE MEASURED
BY THE OVERALL PROCESS?
In recent years some employers have
eliminated the overall adverse impact
of a selection procedure and employed
sufficient numbers of minorities or
women to meet this "%th's rule of
thumb". However, they might contin-
ue use of a component which does
have an adverse impact. For example,
an employer might insist on a mini-
mum passing score on a written test
which is not job related and which has
an adverse impact on minorities."
However, the employer might compen-
sate for this adverse impact by hiring
a sufficient proportion of minorities
who do meet its standards, so that its
overall hiring is on a par with or
higher than the applicant flow. Em-
ployers have argued that as long as
their "bottom line" shows no overall
?Furnco v. Waters, 98 S.Ct. 2943 (19178).
'Section 6.
'Section 413,
'Section 16R (definition of selection rate).
1?Section 4D (special recruiting programs).
"Ibid (user's actions have discouraged ap-
plicants).
'See, e.g., Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401
U:S. 424. (1971).
adverse impact, there is no violation at steps are required by the guidelines?
all, regardless of the operation of a As previously noted, the employer can
particular component of the process. modify or eliminate the procedure
Employee representatives have which produces the adverse impact,
argued that rights under equal em- thus taking the selection procedure
ployment opportunity laws are individ- from the coverage of these guidelines.
ual, and the fact that an employer has If the employer does not do that, then
hired some minorities does not justify it must justify the use of the proce-
discrimination against other minor- dure on grounds of "business necessi-
ities. Therefore, they argue that ad- ty." " This normally means that it
verse impact is to be determined by ex- must show a clear relation between
amination of each component of the performance on the selection proce-
selection procedure, regardless of the dure and performance on the job. In
"bottom line." This question has not the language of industrial psychology,
been answered definitively by the the employer must validate the selec-
courts. There are decisions pointing in tion procedure. Thus the bulk of the
both directions. guidelines consist of the Government's
These guidelines do not address the interpretation of standards for valida-
underlying question of law. They dis- tion.
cuss only the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion by the Government agen-
cies themselves." The agencies have
decided that, generally, their resources
to combat discrimination should be
used against those respondents whose
practices have restricted or excluded
the opportunities of minorities and
women. If an employer is appropriate-
ly including all groups in the work-
force, it is not sensible to spend Gov-
ernment time and effort on such a
case, when there are so many employ-
ers whose practices do have adverse ef-
fects 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 pos-
ture of the employer concerning equal
employment opportunity, including its
affirmative action plan and results
achieved under the plan.14 There are
some circumstances where the govern-
ment may intervene even though the
"bottom line" has been satisfied. They
include the case where a component of
a selection procedure restricts promo-
tional opportunities of minorities or
women who were discriminatorily as-
signed to jobs, and where a compo-
nent, such as a height requirement,
has been declared unlawful in other
situations.'5
What of the individual who is denied
the job because of a particular compo-
nent in a procedure which otherwise
meets the "bottom line" standard?
The individual retains the right to
proceed through the appropriate agen-
cies, and into Federal court."
IV. WHERE ADVERSE IMPACT EXISTS: THE
BASIC OPTIONS
V. VALIDATION: CONSIDERATION OF
ALTERNATIVES
The concept of validation as used in
personnel psychology involves the es-
tablishment of the relationship be-
tween a test instrument or other selec-
tion procedure and performance on
the job. Federal equal employment op-
portunity law has added a require-
ment to the process of validation. In
conducting a validation study, the em-
ployer should consider available alter-
natives which will achieve its legiti-
mate business purpose with lesser ad-
verse impact." The employer cannot
concentrate solely cn establishing the
validity of the instrument or proce-
dure which it has been using in the
past.
This same principle of using the al-
ternative with lesser adverse impact is
applicable to the manner in which an
employer uses a valid selection proce-
dure." The guidelines assume that
there are at least three ways in which
an employer can use scores on a selec-
tion procedure: (1) To screen out of
consideration those who are not likely
to be able to perform the job success-
fully; (2) to group applicants in ac-
cordance with the likelihood of their
successful performance on the job,
and (3) to rank applicants, selecting
those with the highest scores for em-
ployment.20
The setting of a "cutoff score" to de-
termine who will be screened out may
have an adverse impact. If so, an em-
ployer is required to justify the initial
cutoff score by reference to its need
for a trustworthy and efficient work
force.21 Similarly, use of results for
Once an employer has established
that there is adverse impact, what
"Section 4C.
"Section 4E.
"Section 4C.
"The processing of individual cases is ex-
cluded from the operation of the bottom
line concept by the definition of "enforce-
ment action," section 161. Under section 4C,
where adverse impact has existed, the em-
ployer must keep records of the effect of
each component for 2 years after the ad-
verse effect has dissipated.
"A few practices may be used without
validation even if they have adverse impact.
See, e.g., McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 47.1
U.S. 792 (1973) and section 6B.
"Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S.
405 (1975); Robinson V. Lorillard Corp., 444
F. 2d 791 (4th Cir. 1971).
"Sections 3B; 5G.
21Ibid.
21 See sections 3B; SId. See also sections
14B(6) (criterion-related validity); 14C(9)
(content validity); 14D(1) (construct valid-
ity).
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 38292
Approved For Release R 4/MI14RR -iR 9-01114R000300050001-8
grouping or for rank ordering is likely
to have a greater adverse effect than
use of scores solely to screen out un-
qualified candidates. If the employer
chooses to use a rank order method,
the evidence of validity must be suffi-
cient to justify that method of use.22
VI. TESTING FOR HIGHER LEVEL JOBS
Normally, employers test for the job
for which people are hired. However,
there are situations where the first job
is temporary or transient, and the
workers who remain are promoted to
work which involves more complex ac-
tivities. The guidelines restrict testing
for higher level jobs to users who pro-
mote a majority of the employees who
remain with them to the higher level
job within a reasonable period of
time. 11
VII. HOW IS VALIDATION TO BE
CONDUCTED
Validation has become highly tech-
nical and complex, and yet is constant-
ly changing as a set of concepts in in-
dustrial psychology. What follows
here is a simple introduction to a
highly complex field. There are three
concepts which can be used to validate
a selection procedure. These concepts
reflect different approaches to investi-
gating the job relatedness of selection
procedures and may be interrelated in
practice. They are (1) criterion-related
validity,24 (2) content validity'25 and (3)
construct validity.26 In criterion-relat-
ed validity, a selection procedure is
justified by a statistical relationship
between scores on the test or other se-
lection procedure and measures of job
performance. In content validity, a se-
lection procedure is justified by show-
ing that it representatively samples
significant parts of the job, such as a
typing test for a typist. Construct va-
lidity involves identifying the psycho-
logical trait (the construct) which un-
derlies successful performance on the
job and then devising a selection pro-
cedure to measure the presence and
degree of the construct. An example
would be a test of "leadership ability."
The guidelines contain technical
standards and documentation require-
ments for the application of each of
the three approaches.27 One of the
problems which the guidelines at-
tempt to meet is the "borderline" be-
2'Sections+6G, 14B(6); 14C(9); 14D(1).
"Section 51.
2'Sections 5B, (General Standards); 14B
(Technical Standards); 15B (Documenta-
tion); 16F (Definition).
"Sections 5B (General Standards); 14C
(Technical Standards); 15C (Documenta-
tion); 16D (Definition).
"Sections 5B (General Standards); 14D
(Technical Standards); 15D (Documenta-
tion); 16E (Definition).
"Technical standards are in section 14;
documentation requirements are in section
15.
tween "content validity" and "con-
struct validity." The extreme cases are
easy to understand. A secretary, for
example, may have to type. Many jobs
require the separation of important
matters which must be handled imme-
diately from those which can be han-
dled routinely. For the typing func-
tion, a typing test is appropriate. It is
justifiable on the basis of content va-
lidity because it is a sample of an im-
portant or critical part of the job. The
second function can be viewed as in-
volving a capability to exercise selec-
tive judgment in light of the surround-
ing circumstances, a mental process
which is difficult to sample.
In addressing this situation, the
guidelines attempt to make it practical
to validate the typing test by a con-
tent strategy,26 but do not allow the
validation of a test measuring a con-
struct such as "judgment" by a con-
tent validity strategy.
The bulk of the guidelines deals
with questions such as those discussed
in the above paragraphs. Not all such
questions can be answered simply, nor
can all problems be addressed in the
single document. Once the guidelines
are issued, they will have to be inter-
preted in light of changing factual,
legal, and professional circumstances.
VIII. SIMPLIFICATION OF REPORTING AND
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
The reporting and recordkeeping
provisions which appeared in the De-
cember 30 draft which was published
for comment have been carefully re-
viewed in light of comments received
and President Carter's direction to
limit paperwork burdens on those reg-
ulated by Government to the mini-
mum necessary for effective regula-
tion. As a result of this review, two
major changes have been made in the
documentation requirements of the
guidelines:
(1) A new section 15A(1) provides a
simplified recordkeeping option for
employers with fewer than 100 em-
ployees;
(2) Determinations of the adverse
impact of selection procedures need
not be made for groups which consti-
tute less than 2 percent of the rele-
vant labor force.
Also, the draft has been changed to
make clear that users can assess ad-
verse impact on an annual basis rather
than on a continuing basis.
Analysis of comments. The uniform
guidelines published today are based
upon the proposition that the Federal
Government should speak to the
public and to those whom it regulates
with one voice on this important sub-
ject; and that the Federal Government
ought to impose upon itself obliga-
tions for equal employment opportuni-
ty which are at least as demanding as
those it seeks to impose on others.
These guidelines state a uniform Fed-
eral position on this subject, and are
intended to protect the rights created
by title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, Executive Order
11246, as amended, and other provi-
sions of Federal law. The uniform
guidelines are also intended to repre-
sent "professionally acceptable meth-
ods" of the psychological profession
for demonstrating'whether a selection
procedure validly predicts or measures
performance for a particular job. Albe-
marle Paper Co. v. Moody, 442 U.S.
405, 425. They are also intended to be
consistent with the decisions of the
Supreme Court and authoritative deci-
sions of other appellate courts.
Although the development of these
guidelines preceded the issuance by
President Jimmy Carter of Executive
Order 12044 designed to improve the
regulatory process, the spirit of his
Executive order was followed in their
development. Initial agreement among
the Federal agencies was reached
early in the fall of 1977, and the
months from October 1977 until today
have been spent in extensive consulta-
tion with civil rights groups whose cli-
entele are protected by these guide-
lines; employers, labor unions, and
State and local governments whose
employment practices are affected by
these guidelines; State and local gov-
ernment antidiscrimination agencies
who share with the Federal Govern-
ment enforcement responsibility for
discriminatory practices; and appropri-
ate members of the general public. For
example, an earlier draft of these
-guidelines was circulated informally
for comment on October 28, 1971, pur-
suant to OMB Circular A-85. Many
comments were received from repre-
sentatives of State and local govern-
ments, psychologists, private employ-
ers, and civil rights groups. Those
comments were taken into account in
the draft of these guidelines which
was published for comment December
30, 1977, 42 FR 66542.
More than 200 organizations and in-
dividuals submitted written comments
on the December 30, 1977, draft.
These comments were from represen-
tatives of private industry, public em-
ployers, labor organizations, civil
rights groups, the American Psycho-
logical Association and components
thereof, and many individual employ-
ers, psychologists, and personnel spe-
cialists. On March 3, 1978, notice was
given of a public hearing and meeting
to be held on April 10, 1978, 43 FR
9131. After preliminary review of the
comments, the agencies identified four
issues of particular interest, and invit-
ed testimony particularly on those
issues, 43 FR 11812 (March 21, 1978).
In the same notice the agencies pub-
lished questions and answers on four
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 166-FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1978
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 RULES AND REGULATIONS- 3829:3
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114RQ~00300050001-8
issues of concern to the commenters. bottom line concept and the construct po icy in suppor of voluntary affirma-
The questions and answers were de-
signed to clarify the intent of the De-
cember 30, 1977, draft, so as to provide
a sharper focus for the testimony at
the hearing.
At a full day of testimony on April
10, 1978, representatives of private in-
labor organizations, and civil rights
groups, as well as psychologists, per-
sonnel specialists, and others testified
at the public hearing and meeting.
The written comments, testimony, and
views expressed in subsequent infor-
mal consultations have been carefully
considered by the four agencies. We
set forth below a summary of the com-
ments, and the major issues raised in
the comments and testimony, and at-
tempt to explain how we have resolved
those issues.
The statement submitted by the
American Psychological Association
(A.P.A.) stated that "these guidelines
represent a major step forward and
with careful interpretation can pro-
vide a sound basis for concerned pro-
s fessional work." Most of the A.P.A.
comments were directed to clarifica-
tion and interpretation of the present
language of the proposal. However,
the A.P.A. recommended substantive
change in the construct validity sec-
tion and in the definition of work be-
havior.
Similarly, the Division of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology (divi-
sion 14) of the A.P.A. described the
technical standards of the guidelines
as "superior" in terms of congruence
with professional standards to "most
previous orders and guidelines but nu-
merous troublesome aspects remain."
Division 14 had substantial concerns
with a number of the provisions of the
general principles of the draft.
Civil rights groups generally found
the uniform guidelines. far superior to
the FEA guidelines, and many urged
their adoption, with modifications con-
cerning ranking and documentation.
Others raised concerns about the
"bottom line" concept and other provi-
sions of the guidelines.
The Ad Hoc Group on Employee Se-
lection Procedures representing many
represents State and local govern-
ments, generally took the same posi-
tion as the ad hoc group. Major indus-
trial unions found that the draft
guidelines were superior to the FEA
guidelines, but they perceived them to
be inferior to the EEOC guidelines.
They challenged particularly the
employers in private industry support-
ed the concept of uniform guidelines,
but had a number of problems with
particular provisions, some of which
are described below. The American So-
ciety for Personnel Administration
(ASPA) and the International Person-
nel Management Association, which
validity section.
The building trade unions urged an
exclusion of apprenticeship programs
from coverage of the guidelines. The
American Council on Education found
them inappropriate for employment
decisions concerning faculty at institu-
tions of higher education. Other par-
ticular concerns were articulated by
organizations representing the handi-
capped, licensing and certifying agen-
cies, and college placement offices.
General Principles
1. Relationship between validation
and elimination of adverse impact,
and affirmative action. Federal equal
employment opportunity law general-
ly does not require evidence of validity
for a selection procedure if there is no
adverse Impact; e.g., Griggs v. Duke
Power Co., 401 U.S. 424. Therefore, a
user has the choice of complying
either by providing evidence of valid-
ity (or otherwise justifying use in
accord with Federal law), or by elimi-
nating the adverse impact. These op-
tions have always been present under
Federal law, 29 CFR 1607.3; 41 CFR
60-3.3(a); and the Federal Executive
Agency Guidelines, 41 FR 51734 (No-
vember 23, 1976). The December 30
draft guidelines, however, clarified the
nature of the two options open to
users.
Psychologists expressed concern
that the December 30 draft of section
6A encouraged the use of invalid pro-
cedures as long as there is no adverse
impact. Employers added the concern
that the section might encourage the
use of illegal procedures not having an
adverse impact against the groups who
have historically suffered discrimina-
tion (minorities, women), even If they
have an adverse impact on a different
group (whites, males).
Section 6A was not so intended, and
we have revised it to clarify the fact
that illegal acts purporting to be af-
firmative action are not the goal of
the agencies or of the guidelines; and
that any employee selection procedure
must. be lawful and should be as job
related as possible. The delineation of
examples of alternative procedures
was eliminated to avoid the implica-
tion that particular procedures are
either prescribed or are necessarily ap-
propriate. The basic thrust of section
6A, that elimination of adverse impact
is an alternative to validation, is re-
tained..
The inclusion of excerpts from the
1976 Equal Employment Opportunity
Coordinating Council Policy State-
ment on Affirmative Action in section
13B of the December 30 draft was
criticized as not belonging in a set of
guidelines for the validation of selec-
tion procedures. Section 13 has been
revised. The general statement of
tive action, and the reaffirmation of
the policy statement have been re-
tained, but this statement itself is now
found in the appendix to the guide-
lines.
2. The "bottom line" (section 4C).
The guidelines provide that when the
overall selection process does not have
an adverse impact the Government
will usually not examine the individu-
al components of that process for ad-
verse impact or evidence of validity.
The concept is based upon the view.
that the Federal Government should
not generally concern itself with indi-
vidual components of a selection proc-
ess, if the overall effect of that process
is nonexclusionary. Many commenters
criticized the ambiguity caused by the
word "generally" in the December 30
draft of section 4C which provided,
"the Federal enforcement agen-
cies * * * generally will not take en-
forcement action based upon adverse
impact of any component" of a process
that does not have an overall adverse
impact. Employer groups stated - the
position that the "bottom line" should
be a rule prohibiting enforcement
action by Federal agencies with re-
spect to all or any part of a selection
process where the bottom line does
not show adverse impact. Civil rights
and some labor union representatives
expressed the opposing concerns that
the concept may be too restrictive,
that it may be interpreted as a matter
of law, and that it might allow certain
discriminatory conditions to go unre-
medied.
The guidelines have been revised to
clarify the intent that the bottom line
concept is based upon administrative
and prosecutorial discretion. The Fed-
eral agencies cannot accept the recom-
mendation that they never inquire
into or take enforcement action with
respect to any component procedure
unless the whole process of which it is
a part has an adverse impact. The Fed-
eral enforcement agencies believe that
enforcement action may be warranted
in unusual circumstances, such as
those involving other discriminatory
practices, or particular selection proce-
dures which have no validity and have
a clear adverse impact on a national
basis. Other unusual circumstances
may warrant a high level agency deci-
sion to proceed with enforcement ac-
tions although the "bottom line" has
been satisfied. At, the same time the
agencies adhere to the bottom line
concept of allocating resources primar-
ily to those users whose overall selec-
tion processes have an adverse impact.
See overview, above, part III.
3. Investigation of alternative selec-
tion procedures and alternative meth-
ods of use (section 3B). The December
30 draft included an obligation on the
user, when conducting a validity
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 38294 RULES A R GULAi~ Ng
Approved For Release 2001/08/ND 14 : IA-RD~$9-01114R000300050001-8
study, to investigate alternative proce- nation of a cutoff score or the use of a
dures and uses, in order to determine procedure for ranking candidates re
whether there are other procedures lates to adverse impact.
which are substantially equally valid,
but which have less adverse impact.
The American Psychological Associ-
ation stated:
We would concur with the drafters of the
guidelines that it is appropriate in the de-
termination of a selection strategy to con-
sider carefully a variety of possible proce-
dures and to think carefully about the ques-
tion of adverse impact with respect to each
of these procedures. Nevertheless, we feel it
appropriate to note that a rigid enforce-
ment of these sections, particularly for
smaller employers, would impose a substan-
tial and expensive burden'on these employ-
ers."
Since a reasonable consideration of
alternatives is consistent with the un-
derlying principle of minimizing ad-
verse impact consistent with business
needs, the provision is retained.
Private employer representatives
challenged earlier drafts of these
guidelines as being inconsistent with
the decision of the Supreme Court in
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422
U.S. 405. No such inconsistency was in-
tended. Accordingly, the first sentence
of section 3B was revised to para-
phrase the opinion in the Albemarle
decision, so as to make it clear that
section 3B is in accord with the princi-
ples of the Albemarle decision.
Section 3B was further revised to
clarify the intent of the guidelines
that the obligation to investigate al-
ternative procedures is a part of con-
ducting a validity study, so that alter-
native procedures should be evaluated
in light of validity studies meeting
professional standards, and that sec-
tion 3B does not impose an obligation
to search for alternatives if the user is
not required to conduct a validity
study.
Just as, under section 3B of the
guidelines, a user should investigate
alternative selection procedures as a
part of choosing and validating a pro-
cedure, so should the user investigate
alternative uses of the selection device
chosen to find the use most appropri-
ate to his needs. The validity study
should address the question of what
method of use (screening, grouping, or
rank ordering) is appropriate 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
procedure on a ranking basis rather
than on a pass-fail basis. They also ob-
jected to section 5G in terms of setting
cutoff scores. Other comments noted a
lack of clarity as to how the determi-
As we have noted, users are not re-
quired 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
impact 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 great-
er adverse impact than its use as a
screening device, the evidence of valid-
ity, and utility must be sufficient to
warrant use of the procedures as a
ranking device.
A new section 5G has been added to
clarify these concepts. Section 5H (for-
merly section 5G) addresses the choice
of a cutoff score when a procedure is
to be used for ranking.
!i. Scope: Requests for exemptions for
certain classes of users. Some employ-
er 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 spe-
cial needs. The intent of Congress as
expressed in Federal equal employ-
ment opportunity law is to apply the
same standards to all users, public and
private.
These guidelines apply the same
principles and standards to all employ-
ers. On the other hand, the nature of
the procedures which will actually
meet those principles and standards
may be different for different employ-
ers, and the guidelines 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 per-
sons objected to excluding from the
scope of these guidelines the enforce-
ment of laws prohibiting discrimina-
tion on the basis of handicap, in par-
ticular 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 certifi-
cation are covered "to the extent"
that licensing and certification may be
covered by Federal equal employment
opportunity 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 sub-
ject to these guidelines. If an employ-
er relies upon such certification in
making employment decisions, the em-
ployer is the user and must be pre-
pared to justify, under Federal law,
that reliance as it would any other se-
lection 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 un-
lawful discrimination.
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 sig-
nificance. Many decisions in day-to-
day life are made on the basis of infor-
mation which does not have the justi-
fication of a test of statistical signifi-
cance. Courts have found adverse
impact without a showing of statistical
significance. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.,
supra; Vulcan Society of New York v.
CSC of N. Y., 490 F. 2d 387, 393 (2d Cir.
1973); Kirkland v. New York St. Dept.
of Corr. Serv., 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.
Technical Standards
7. Criterion-related validity (section
14B). This section of the guidelines
found general support among the com-
menters from the psychological pro-
fession and, except for the, provisions
concerning test fairness (sometimes
mistakenly equated with differential
prediction or differential validity),
generated relatively little comment.
The provisions of the guidelines con-
cerning criterion-related validity stud-
ies call for studies of fairness of selec-
tion procedureg where technically fea-
sible.
Section 14B(8). Some psychologists
and employer groupsobjected that the
concept of test fairness or unfairness
has been discredited by professionals
and pointed out that the term is com-
monly misused. We recognize that
there is serious debate on the question
of test fairness; however, it is accepted
professionally that fairness should be
examined where feasible. The A.P.A.
standards for educational and psycho-
logical tests, for example, direct users
to explore the question of fairness on
finding a difference in group perfor-
mances (section E9, pp. 43-44). Simi-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 LE5 AND REGULATIONS 38295
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
larly the concept of test fairness is one validity have been revised to meet the D. Adverse impact And The "Four-Fifths
which is closely related to the basic concerns expressed by the A.P.A. The Rule"
E. Consideration of User's Equal Employ-
thrust of Federal equal employment
opportunity law; and that concept was
endorsed by the Supreme Court in Al-
bemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S.
405. .
Accordingly, we have retained in the
guidelines the obligation upon users to
investigate test fairness where it is
technically feasible to do so.
8. Content validity. The Division of
Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy of A.P.A. correctly perceived that
the provisions of the draft guidelines
concerning content validity, with their
emphasis on observable work beha-
viors or work products, were "greatly
concerned with minimizing the infer-
ential leap between test and perform-
ance." That division expressed the
view that the draft guidelines neglect-
ed situations where a knowledge, skill
or ability is necessary to an outcome
but where the work behavior cannot
be replicated in a test. They recom-
mended 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 valid-
ity 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 thouh the test might not be
close enough o the work behavior to
be considered a work sample, and the
guidelines have been revised appropri-
ately. On the other hand, tests of
mental processes which are not direct-
ly observable and which may be diffi-
cult to determine on the basis of ob-
servable work behaviors or work prod-
ucts should not be supported by con-
tent validity.
Thus, the Principles for the Valida-
tion and Use of Personnel. Selection
Procedures (Division of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, American
Psychological 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 va-
lidity requirements in the December
30 draft were confusing and technical-
ly inaccurate. As section 14D indicates,
construct validity is a relatively new
procedure in the field of personnel se-
lection and there is not yet substantial
guidance in the professional literature
construct validity section as revised
clarifies what is required by the Feder-
al enforcement agencies at this stage
in the development of construct valid-
ity. The guidelines leave open the pos-
sibility that different evidence of con-
struct validity may be accepted in the
future, as new methodologies develop
and become incorporated in profes-
sional standards and other profession-
al literature.
10. Documentation (section 15).
Commenters stated that the documen-
tation section did not conform to the
technical requirements of the guide-
lines or was otherwise inadequate. Sec-
tion 15 has been glarified and two sig-
nificant changes have been made to
minimize the recordkeeping burden.
(See overview, part VIII.)
11. Definitions (section 16). The
definition of work behavior in the De-
cember 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 behavior as a part of
any validation technique. Other com-
ments criticized the absence or inade-
quacies of other definitions, expecially
"adverse impact." Substantial revi-
sions 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 offi-
cial adoptions follow the guidelines in
this part IV as follows: Civil Service
Commission, Department of Justice,
Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission, Department of Labor.
For official citation see section 18 of
these guidelines.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
1. Statement of Purpose
A. Need for Uniformity-Issuing Agencies
B. Purpose of Guidelines
C. Relation to Prior Guidelines
2. Scope
A. Application of Guidelines
B. Employment Decisions
C. Selection Procedures
D. Limitations
E. Indian Preference Not Affected
3. Discrimination Defined: Relationship Be-
tween Use of Selection Procedures and
Discrimination
A. Procedure Having Adverse Impact Con-
stitutes 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
as to its use in the area of employment C. Evaluation of Selection Rates.
practices. The provisions on construct "Bottom Line"
ment Opportunity Posture
5. 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 St&dards
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
0. Method of Use of Selection Procedures
H. Cutoff Scores
1. Use of Selection Procedures for Higher
Level Jobs
J. Interim Use of Selection Procedures
K. Review of Validity Studies for Cur-
rency
6. Use of Selection Procedures Which Have
Not Been Validated
A. Use of Alternate Selection Procedures
to Eliminate Adverse Impact
B. Where Validity Studies Cannot or Need
Not Be Performed
(1) Where Informal or Unscored Proce-
dures Are Used
(2) Where Formal And Scored Proce-
dures Are Used
7. Use of Other Validity Studies
A. Validity Studies not Conducted by the
User
B. Use of Criterion-Related Validity Evi-
dence from Oth.e:r Sources
(1) Validity 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 Assumption of Validity
A. Unacceptable Substitutes for Evidence
of Validity
B. Encouragement of Professional Super-
vision
10. Employment Agencies and Employment
Services
A. Where Selection Procedures Are De-
vised by Agency
B. Where Selection Procedures Are De-
vised Elsewhere
11. Disparate Treatment
12. Retesting of Applicants
13. Affirmative Action
A. Affirmative Action Obligations
B. Encouragement of Voluntary Affirma-
tive Action Programs
TECHNICAL STANDARDS
14. Technical Standards for Validity Studies
A. Validity Studies Should be Based on
Review of Information about the Job
B. Technical Standards for Criterion-Re-
lated Validity Studies
(1) Technical Feasibility
(2) Analysis of the Job
(3) Criterion Measures
(4) Representativeness of the Sample
(5) Statistical Relationships
(6) Operational Use of Selection Proce-
dures
(7) Over-Statement of Validity Findings
(8) Fairness
(a) Unfairness Defined
(b) Investigation of Fairness
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 166-FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1978
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 38296 RU ES AND 8 u
Approved For Release 201/08/14 M%W-01114R000300050001-8
(c) General Considerations in Fairness
Investigations
(d) When Unfairness Is Shown
(e) Technical Feasibility of Fairness
Studies
(f) Continued Use of Selection Proce-
dures When Fairness Studies not Feasi-
ble
C. Technical Standards to Content Valid-
ity Studies
(1) Appropriateness of Content Validity
Studies
(2) Job Analysis for Content Validity
(3) Development of Selection Procedure
(4) Standards P or Demonstrating Con-
tent Validity
(5) Reliability -
(6) Prior Training or Experience
(-7) Training Success
(8) Operational Use
(9) Ranking Based on Content Validity
Studies
D. Technical Standards For Construct Va-
lidity Studies
(1) Appropriateness of Construct Valid-
ity 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
Behaviors
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
Eliminated in The Total Selection Proc-
ess
(c) When Data Insufficient to Deter-
mine 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 Infor-
mation
(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 Pro-
cedure 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 Perfromance
(8) Alternative Procedures Investigated
(9) Uses and Applications
(10) Accuracy and Completeness
(i l) Source Data
(12) Contact Person
E. Evidence of Validity from Other Stud-
ies
(1) Evidence from Criterion-Related Va-
lidity 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
Studies
F. Evidence of Validity from Cooperative
Studies
G. Selection for Higher Level Jobs
B. Interim Use of Selection Procedures
DEFINITIONS
16. Definitions
APPENDIX
17. Policy Statement on Affirmative Action
(see Section 13B)
18. Citations
SECTION 1. Statement of purpose-A.
Need for uniformity--issuing agencies.
The Federal government's need for a
uniform set of principles on the ques-
tion of the use of tests and other selec-
tion procedures has long been recog-
nized. The Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission, the Civil Service
Commission, the Department of
Labor, and the Department of Justice
jointly have adopted these uniform
guidelines to meet that need, and to
apply the same principles to the Fed-
eral. Government as are applied to
other employers.
B. Purpose of guidelines. These
guidelines incorporate a single set of
principles which are designed to assist
employers, labor organizations, em-
ployment agencies, and licensing and
certification boards to comply with re-
quirements of Federal law prohibiting
employment practices which discrimi-
nate on grounds of race, color, reli-
gion, sex, and national origin. They
are designed to provide a framework
for determining the proper use of tests
and other selection procedures. These
guidelines do not require a user to con-
duct validity studies of selection proce-
dures where no adverse impact results.
However, all users are encouraged to
use selection procedures which are
valid, especially users operating under
rner:it principles.
C. Relation 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 agencies, and the
practical experience of the agencies, as
well as the standards of the psycho-
logical profession. These guidelines
are intended to be consistent with ex-
isting law.
Sec. 2. Scope.-A. Application of
guidelines. These guidelines will be ap-
plied by the Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission in the enforce-
ment 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 De-
partment of Labor, and the contract
compliance agencies until the transfer
of authority contemplated by the
President's Reorganization. Plan No. 1
of 1978, in the administration and en-
forcement of Executive Order 11246,
as amended by Executive Order 11375
(hereinafter "Executive Order
11246"); by the Civil Service Commis-
sion and other Federal agencies sub-
ject to section 717 of Title VII; by the
Civil Service Commission in exercising
its responsibilities toward State and
local governments under section
208(b)(1) of the Intergovernmental-
Personnel Act; by the Department of
Justice in exercising Its responsibilities
under Federal law; by the Office of
Revenue Sharing of the Department
of the Treasury under the State and
Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, as
amended; and by any other Federal
agency which adopts them.
B. Employment decisions. These
guidelines apply to tests and other se-
lection procedures which are used as a
basis for any employment decision.
Employment decisions include but are
not limited to hiring, promotion, de-
motion, membership (for example, in a
labor organization), referral, reten-
tion, and licensing and certification, to
the extent that licensing and certifica-
tion may be covered by Federal equal
employment opportunity law. Other
selection decisions, such as selection
for training or transfer, may also be
considered employment decisions if
they lead to any of the decisions listed
above.
C. Selection procedures. These guide-
lines apply only to selection proce-
dures which are used as a basis for
making employment decisions. For ex-
ample, the use of recruiting proce-
dures designed to attract members of a
particular race, sex, or ethnic group,
which were previously denied employ-
ment opportunities or which are cur-
rently underutilized. may be necessary
to bring an employer into compliance
with Federal law, and is frequently an
essential element of any effective af-
FMRAL *E' S'f#R, VOL 43, NO. 166-FR10AY, AUGUST 26, 1978
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 RULES AND REGULATIONS 38297
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01 14 0n3 nnnn
tection rates. The
E Q9ci!(. 3W , SL~R
firmative action program; but recruit- alternative selection procedures an va,
ment practices are not considered by suitable alternative methods of using "bottom line." If the information
these guidelines to be selection proce- the selection procedure which have as called for by sections 4A and B above
dures. Similarly, these guidelines do little adverse impact as possible, to de- shows that the total selection process
ess of using for a job has an adverse impact, the
t
i
en
a
not pertain to the question of the law- termine the appropr
fulness of a seniority system within or validating them in accord with individual components of the selection
If a user has made a process should be evaluated for ad-
i
nes.
the meaning of section 703(h), Execu- these guidel
tive Order 11246 or other provisions of reasonable effort to become aware of verse impact. If this information
Federal law or regulation, except to such alternative procedures and valid- shows that the total selection process
the extent that such systems utilize ity has been demonstrated in accord does not have an adverse impact, the
selection procedures to determine with these guidelines, the use of the Federal enforcement agencies, in the
qualifications or abilities to perform test or other selection procedure may exercise of their administrative and
the job. Nothing in these guidelines is continue until such time as it should prosecutorial discretion, in usual cir-
intended or, should be interpreted as reasonably be reviewed for currency. cumstances, will not expect a user to
discouraging the use of a selection pro- Whenever the user is shown an alter- evaluate the individual components
dure with evi- for adverse impact, crto validate such
i
on proce
cedure for the purpose of determining native select
qualifications or for the purpose of se- dente of less adverse impact and sub- individual components, and will not
ce of validity for the take enforcement action based upon
id
en
- stantial ev
lection on the basis of relative qualifi
cations, if the selection procedure had same job in similar circumstances, the adverse impact of any component of
been validated in accord with these user should investigate it to determine that process, including the separate
or vali parts of a multipart selection proce
in
f
g
us
guidelines for each such purpose for the appropriateness o
which it is to be used. dating it in accord with these guide- dure or any separate procedure that is
D. Limitations. These guidelines lines. This subsection is not intended _ used as an alternative method of selec
apply only to persons subject to Title to preclude the combination of proce- tion. However, in the following circum-
VII, Executive Order 11246, or other dures into a significantly more valid stances the Federal enforcement agen-
equal employment opportunity re- procedure, if the use of such a combi- ties will expect a user to evaluate the
for a:dverse
quirements of Federal law. These nation has been shown to be in compli- individual components appropriate,
lines
id
.
e
guidelines do not apply to responsibil- ante with the gu
ities under the Age Discrimination in SEC. 4. Information on impact.-A. take enforcement action with respect
Employment Act of 1967, as amended, Records concerning impact. Each user to the individual components: (1)
not to discriminate on the basis of age, should maintain and have available where the selection procedure is a sig-
or under sections 501, 503, and 504 of for inspection records or other infor- nificant factor in the continuation of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, not to mation which will disclose the impact patterns of assignments of incumbent
discriminate on the basis of handicap. which its tests and other selection pro- employees caused by prior discrimina-
aW
ment oppor- tort' employment practices, (2) where
l
oy
E. Indian preference not affected. cedures have upon emp
These guidelines do not restrict any tunities of persons by identifiable race, the weight of court decisions or ad-
obligation imposed or right granted by sex, or ethnic group as set forth in ministrative interpretations hold that
Federal law to users to extend a pref- subparagraph B below in order to de- a specific procedure (such as height or
erence in employment to Indians termine compliance with these guide- weight requirements or no-arrest rec-
living on or near an Indian reservation lines. Where there are large numbers ords) is not job related in the same or
in connection with employment oppor- of applicants and procedures are ad- similar circumstances. In unusual cir-
tunities on or near an Indian reserva- ministered frequently, such informa- cumstances, other than those listed in
tion. tion may be retained on a sample (1) and (2) above, the Federal enforce-
SEC. 3. Discrimination defined: Rela- basis, provided that the sample is ap- ment agencies may request a user to
tionship between use of selection pro- propriate in terms of the applicant evaluate the individual components
cedures and discrimination.-A. Pro- population and adequate in size. for adverse impact and may, where ap-
take enforcement action
and ethnic propriate
,
cedure having adverse impact consti- B. Applicable race, sex,
tutes discrimination unless justified, groups for recordkeeping. The records with respect to the individual compo-
The use of any selection procedure called for by this section are to be nent.
which has an adverse impact on the maintained by sex, and the following D. Adverse impact and the "four-
hiring, promotion, or other employ- races and ethnic groups: Blacks (Ne- fifths rule." A selection rate for any
ment or membership' opportunities of groes), American Indians (including race, sex, or ethnic group which is less
members of any race, sex, or ethnic Alaskan Natives), Asians (including than four-fifths (1/5) (or eighty per-
group will be considered to be discrimi- Pacific Islanders), Hispanic (including cent) of the rate for the group with
natory and inconsistent with these persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, the highest rate will generally be re-
guidelines, unless the procedure has Cuban, Central or South American, or garded by the Federal enforcement
been validated in accordance with other Spanish origin or culture regard- agencies as evidence of adverse impact,
these guidelines, or the provisions of less of race), whites (Caucasians) other while a greater than four-fifths rate
will generally not be regarded by Fed-
The race
and totals
i
i
,
.
c,
span
section 6 below are satisfied. than H
B. Consideration of suitable alterna- sex, and ethnic classifications called eral enforcement agencies as evidence
e consistent with of adverse impact. Smaller differences
ti
on ar
tive selection procedures. Where two for by this sec
or more selection procedures are avail- the Equal Employment Opportunity in selection rate may nevertheless con-
able which serve the user's legitimate Standard Form 100, Employer Infor- stitute adverse impact, where they are
interest in efficient and trustworthy mation Report EEO-1 series of re- significant in both statistical and prac-
The user should adopt safe- tical terms or where a user's actions
t
s.
substan por
workmanship, and which are
no tially equally valid for a given pur- guards to insure that the records re have discouraged applicants dispropor-
h are used for tionately on grounds of race, sex, or
ra
a
thi
p
g
s par
pose, the user should use the proce- quired by
dure which has been demonstrated to appropriate purposes such as deter- ethnic group. Greater differences in
have the lesser adverse impact. Ac- mining adverse impact, or (where re- selection rate may not constitute ad-
cordingly, whenever a validity study is quired) for developing and monitoring verse impact where the differences are
called for by these guidelines, the user affirmative action programs, and that based on small numbers and are not
should include, as a part of the valid- such records are not used improperly. statistically significant, or where spe-
ity study, an investigation of suitable See sections 4E and 17(4), below. cial recruiting or other programs cause
iw FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 166-FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1978
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 38298 RULES AND REEGG~ll,~~}p~
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP$i-01114R000300050001-8
the pool of minority or female candi- below. Evidence of the validity of a tion procedure on a pass/fail (screen-
dates to be atypical of .the normal pool test or other selection procedure by a ing) basis may be insufficient to sup-
of applicants from that group. Where content validity study should consist port the use of the same procedure on
the user's evidence concerning the of data showing that the content of a ranking basis under these guidelines.
Impact of a selection procedure indi- the selection procedure is representa- Thus, if a user decides to use a selec-
cates adverse impact but is based upon tive of important aspects of perform- tion procedure on a ranking basis, and
numbers which are too small to be re- ance on the job for which the candi- that method of use has a greater ad-
liable, evidence concerning the impact dates are to be evaluated. See section verse impact than use on an appropri-
of the procedure over a longer period 14C below. Evidence of the validity of ate pass/fail basis (see section 5H
of time and/or evidence concerning a test or other selection procedure below), the user should have sufficient:
the impact which the selection proce- through a construct validity study evidence of validity and utility to sup-
ditre had when used in the same should consist of data showing that port the use on a ranking basis. Sec
manner in similar circumstances else- the procedure measures the degree to sections 3B, 14B (5) and (6), and 14C
where may be considered in determin- which candidates have identifiable (8) and (9).
ing adverse impact. Where the user characteristics which have been deter- H. Cutoff scores. Where cutoff scores
has not maintained data on adverse mined to be important in successful are used, they should normally be set
impact as required by the documenta- performance in the job for which the so as to be reasonable and consistent
tion section of applicable guidelines, candidates are to. be evaluated. See with normal expectations of accept-
the Federal enforcement agencies may section 14D below. able proficiency within the work force.
draw an inference of adverse impact of C. Guidelines are consistent with Where applicants are ranked on the
the selection process from the failure professional standards. The provisions basis of properly validated selection
of the user to maintain such data, if of these guidelines relating to valida- procedures and those applicants scor-
the user has an underutilization of a tion of selection procedures are in- ing below a higher cutoff score than
group in the job category, as compared tended to be consistent with generally appropriate in light of such expecta-
to the group's representation in the accepted professional standards for tions have little or no chance of being
relevant labor market or, in the case evaluating standardized tests and selected for employment, the higher
of jobs filled from within, the applica- other selection procedures, such as cutoff score may be appropriate, but
ble work force.. those described in the Standards for the degree of adverse impact should be
E. Consideration of user's equal em- Educational and Psychological Tests considered.
ployment opportunity posture. In car- prepared by a joint committee of the I. Use of selection procedures .for
rying out their obligations, the Feder- American Psychological Association, higher level jobs. If job progression
al enforcement agencies will consider the American Educational Research structures are so established that em-
the general posture of the user with Association, and the National Council ployees will probably, within a reason-
respect to equal employment opportu- on Measurement in Education (Ameri- able period of time and in a majority
nity for the job or group of jobs in can Psychological Association, Wash- . of cases, progress to a higher level, it
question. Where a user has adopted an ington, D.C., 1974) (hereinafter may be considered that the applicants
affirmative action program, the Feder- "A.P.A. Standards") and standard are being evaluated for a job or jobs at
al enforcement agencies will consider textbooks and journals in the field of the higher level. However, where job
the provisions of that program, includ- personnel selection. progression is not so nearly automatic,
ing the goals and timetables which the D. Need for documentation of valid- or the time span is such that higher
user has adopted and the progress ity. For any selection procedure which level jobs or employees' potential may
which the user has made in carrying is part of a selection process which has be expected to change in significant
out that program and in meeting the an adverse impact and which selection ways, it should be considered that ap-
goals and timetables. While such af- procedure has an adverse impact, each plicants are being evaluated for a job
firmative action programs may in user should maintain and have availa- at or near the entry level. A "reason-
design and execution be race, color, ble such documentation as is described able period of time" will vary for dif-
sex, or ethnic conscious, selection pro- in section 15 below. ferent jobs and employment situations
cedures under such programs should E. Accuracy and standardization. but will seldom be more than 5 years.
be based upon the ability or relative Validity studies should be carried out Use of selection procedures to evaluate
ability to do the work. under conditions which assure insofar applicants for a higher level job would
Sec. 5. General standards for valid- as possible the adequacy and accuracy not be appropriate:
ity studies.-A. Acceptable types of va- of the research and the report. Selec- (1) If the majority of those remain-
lidity studies. For the purposes of sat- Lion procedures should be adrninis- ing employed do not progress to the
isfying these guidelines, users may tered and scored under standardized higher level job;
rely upon criterion-related validity conditions. (2) If there is a reason to doubt that
studies, content validity studies or con- F. Caution against selection on basis the higher level job will continue to
struct validity studies, in accordance of k:nowledges, skills, or ability learned require essentially similar skills during
with the gtanrlarrla -1 f.,,.+i, ,,. +I,.e .,- r._: _r --_._._ _ _ ._ . . _ - . _
technical standards of these guide- users should avoid making employ-
lines, section 14 below. New strategies ment decisions on the basis of meas-
for showing the validity of selection tires of knowledges, skills, or abilities
procedures will be evaluated as they which are normally learned in a brief
become accepted by the psychological orientation period, and which have an
profession, adverse impact.
B. Criterion-related, content, and G. Method of use of selection proce-
construct validity. Evidence of the va- dures. The evidence of both the valid-
lidity of a test or other selection proce- ity and utility of a-selection procedure
dure by a criterion-related validity should support the method the user
study should consist of empirical data chooses for operational use of the pro-
(3) If the selection procedures meas-
ure knowledges, skills, or abilities re-
quired for advancement which would
be expected to develop principally
from the training or experience on the
job.
J. Interim use of selection proce-
dures. Users may continue the use of a
selection procedure which is not at the
moment fully supported by the re-
quired evidence of validity, provided:
(1) Th
h
e user
as available substantial
cadre is predictive of or significantly greater adverse 'impact than another evidence of validity, and (2) the user
correlated with important elements of method of use. Evidence which may be has in progress, when technically fea-
job performance. See section 14B sufficient to support the use of a selec- sible, a study which is designed to pro-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved
RULES AND REGULATIONS 38299
For Release 2001/08/14 :. CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
either modify the procedure to elimi- consider, as one factor in the decision
nate adverse impact or otherwise justi- to purchase a particular selection pro-
fy continued use of the procedure in cedure, the availability of evidence
accord with Federal law. concerning test fairness.
SEC. 7. Use of other validity stud- C. Validity evidence from multiunit
ies.-A. Validity studies not conducted study. if validity evidence from a study
by the user. Users may, under certain covering more than one unit within an
circumstances, support the use of se- organization statisfies the require-
lection procedures by validity studies ments of section 14B below, evidence
conducted by other users or conducted of validity specific to each unit will
by test publishers or distributors and not be required unless there are varia-
described in test manuals. While pub- bles which are likely to affect validity
lishers of selection procedures have a significantly.
professional obligation to provide evi- D. Other significant variables. If
dence of validity which meets general- there are variables in the other studies
ly accepted professional standards (see which are likely to affect validity sig-
section 5C above), users are cautioned nificantly, the user may not rely upon
that they are responsible for compli- such studies, but will be expected
ance with these guidelines. According- either to conduct an internal validity
ly, users seeking to obtain selection study or to comply with section 6
procedures from publishers and dis- above.
tributors should be careful to deter- SEC. 8. Cooperative studies.-A. En-
mine that, in the event the user be- couragement of cooperative studies.
comes subject to the validity require- The agencies issuing these guidelines
ments of these guidelines, the neces- encourage employers, labor organiza-
sary information to support validity tions, and employment agencies to co-
has been determined and will be made operate in research, development,
available to the user. search for lawful alternatives, and va-
B. Use of criterion-related validity lidity studies in order to achieve proce-
evidence from other sources. Criterion- dures which are consistent with these
related validity studies conducted by guidelines.
one test user, or described in test man- B. Standards for use of cooperative
uals and the professional literature, studies. If validity evidence from a co-
will be considered acceptable for use operative study satisfies the require-
by another user when the following ments of section 14 below, evidence of
requirements are met: validity specific to each user will not
(1) Validity evidence. Evidence from be required unless there are variables
the available studies meeting the in the user's situati.on which are likely
standards of section 14B below clearly to affect validity significantly.
demonstrates that the selection proce- SEC. 9. No assumption of validity.-
dure is valid; A. Unacceptable substitutes for evi-
(2) Job similarity. The incumbents dence of validity. Under no circum-
in the user's job and the incumbents stances will the general reputation of'
in the job or group of jobs on which a test or other selection procedures, its
the validity study was conducted per- author or its publisher, or casual re-
form substantially the same major ports of it's validity be accepted in lieu
work behaviors, as shown by appropri- of evidence of validity. Specifically
ate job analyses both on the, job or ruled out are: assumptions of validity
group of jobs on which the validity based on a procedure's name or de-
study was performed and on the job scriptive labels; all forms of promo-
for which the selection procedure is to tional literature; data bearing on the
be used; and frequency of a procedure's usage; testi-
(3) Fairness evidence. The studies in- monial statements and credentials of
elude a study of test fairness for each sellers, users, or consultants; and other
race, sex, and ethnic group which con- nonempirical or anecdotal accounts of
stitutes a significant factor in the bor- selection practices or selection out-
rowing user's relevant labor market comes.
for.the job or jobs in question. If the B. Encouragement of professional
studies under consideration satisfy (1) supervision. Professional supervision
and (2) above but do not contain an in- of selection activities is encouraged
vestigation of test fairness, and it is but is not a substitute for documented
not technically feasible for the bor- evidence of validity. The enforcement
rowing user to conduct an internal agencies will take into account the
study of test fairness, the borrowing fact that a thorough job analysis was
user may utilize the study until stud- conducted and that careful develop-
ies conducted elsewhere meeting the ment and use of a selection procedure
requirements of these guidelines show in accordance with professional stand-
test unfairness, or until such time as it ards enhance the probability that the
becomes technically feasible to con- selection procedure is valid for the job.
duct an internal study of test fairness SEC. 10. Employment agencies and
and the results of that study can be employment services.-A. Where selec-
acted upon. Users obtaining selection tion procedures are devised by agency.
procedures from publishers should An employment agency, including pri-
duce the additional evidence required
by these guidelines within a reason-
able time. If such a study is not tech-
nically feasible, see section 6B. If the
study does not demonstrate validity,
this provision of these guidelines for
interim use shall not constitute a de-
fense 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 per-
formed until such time as the validity
study is subject to review as provided
in section 3B above. There are no ab-
solutes in the area of determining the
currency of a validity study. All cir-
cumstances concerning the study, in-
cluding the validation strategy used,
and changes in the relevant labor
market and the job should be consid-
ered in the determination of when a
validity study is outdated.
SEC. 6: Use of selection procedures
which have not been validated.-A.
Use of alternate selection procedures
to eliminate adverse impact. A user
may choose to utilize alternative selec-
tion procedures in order to eliminate
adverse impact or as part of an affirm-
ative 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 cir-
cumstances in which a user cannot or
need not utilize the validation tech-
niques contemplated by these guide-
lines. In such circumstances, the user
should utilize selection procedures
which are as job related as possible
and which will minimize or eliminate
adverse impact, as set forth below.
(1) Where informal or unscored pro-
cedures 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 quan-
tified measure or combination of
measures and then validate the proce-
dure in accord with these guidelines,
or otherwise justify continued use of
the procedure in accord with Federal
law.
(2) Where formal and scored proce-
dures are used. When a formal and
scored selection procedure is used
which has an adverse impact, the vali-
dation techniques contemplated by
these guidelines usually should be fol
lowed if technically feasible. Where
the user cannot or need not follow the
validation techniques anticipated by
these guidelines, the user should
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For ReleaseS6slMA4tE@'if ?P199-01114R000300050001-8
vate employment agencies and State
employment agencies, which agrees to
a request by an employer or labor or-
ganization to device and utilize a selec-
tion procedure should follow the
standards in these guidelines for de-
termining adverse impact. If adverse
impact exists the agency should
comply with these guidelines. An em-
ployment agency is not relieved of its
obligation herein because the user did
not request such validation or has re-
quested the use of some lesser stand-
ard of validation than is provided in
these guidelines. The use of an em-
ployment agency does not relieve an
employer or labor organization or
other user of its responsibilities under
Federal law to provide equal employ-
ment opportunity or its obligations as
a user under these guidelines.
B. Where selection procedures are de-
vised elsewhere. Where an employ-
ment agency or service is requested to
administer a selection procedure
which has been devised elsewhere and
to make referrals pursuant to the re-
sults, the employment agency or serv-
ice should maintain and have available
evidence of the impact of the selection
and referral procedures which it ad-
ministers. If adverse impact results
the agency or service should comply
with these guidelines. If the agency or
service seeks to comply with these
guidelines by reliance upon validity
studies or other data in the possession
of the employer, it should obtain and
have available such information.
SEC. 11. Disparate treatment. The
principles of disparate or unequal
treatment must be distinguished from
the concepts of validation. A selection
procedure-even though validated
against job performance in accordance
with these guidelines-cannot be im-
posed 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 members of a
race, sex, or ethnic group have been
denied the same employment, promo-
tion, 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, be-
cause 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 followed
the discriminatory practices should be
allowed the opportunity to qualify
under less stringent selection proce-
dures previously followed, unless the
user demonstrates that the increased
standards are required by business ne-
cessity. 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 pre-
elude a user who has previously used
invalid or unvalidated selection proce-
(lures from developing and using pro-
cedures which are in accord with these
guidelines.
SEC. 12. Retesting of applicants.
Users should provide a reasonable op-
portunity for retesting and reconsider-
ation. Where examinations are admin-
istered periodically with public notice,
.uch reasonable opportunity exists,
unless persons who have previously
been tested are precluded from retest-
ing. The user may however take rea-
sonable steps to preserve the security
of its procedures.
SEC. 13. Affirmative action.-A. Af-
firmative action 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 under-
take affirmative action to assure equal
employment opportunity. Nothing in
these guidelines is intended to pre-
clude the use of lawful selection proce-
dures which assist in remedying the
effects of prior discriminatory prac-
tices, or the achievement of affirma-
JAve action objectives.
B. Encouragement of voluntary af-
firmative action programs. These
guidelines are also intended to encour-
age the adoption and implementation
cf voluntary affirmative action pro-
grams 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 agen-
cies issuing and endorsing these guide-
lines endorse for all private employers
and reaffirm for all governmental em-
ployers the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Coordinating Council's "Policy
:statement on Affirmative Action Pro-
grams for State and Local Govern-
ment Agencies" (41 FR 38814, Septem-
ber 13, 1976). That policy statement is
attached hereto as appendix, section
17.
TECHNICAL STANDARDS
SEC. 14. Technical standards for va-
lidity studies. The following minimum
standards, as applicable, should be met
in conducting a validity study. Noth-
ing in these guidelines is intended to
preclude the development and use of
other professionally acceptable tech-
niques with respect to validation of se-
lection procedures. Where it is not
technically feasible for a user to con-
duct a validity study, the user has the
obligation otherwise to comply with
these guidelines. See sections 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 re-
quired for the specific validation strat-
egy used.
B. Technical standards for criterion-
related validity studies.-(1) Technical
feasibility. Users choosing to validate
a selection procedure by a criterion-re-
lated validity strategy should deter-
mine whether it is technically feasible
(as defined in section 16) to conduct
such a study in the particular employ-
ment context. 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 ap-
propriate, 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 con-
duct a criterion-related study.
(2) Analysis of the job. There should
be a review of job information to de-
termine measures of work behavior(s)
or performance that are relevant to
the job or group of jobs in question.
These measures or criteria are rele-
vant to the extent that they represent
critical or important job duties, work
behaviors or work outcomes as devel-
oped from the review of job informa-
tion. The possibility of bias should be
considered both in selection of the cri-
terion measures and their application.
In view of the possibility of bias in
subjective evaluations, supervisory
rating techniques and instructions to
raters should be carefully developed.
All criterion measures and the meth-
ods for gathering data need to be ex-
amined 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 measures
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 crite-
rion measures. Whatever criteria are
used should represent important or
critical work behavior(s) or work out-
comes. Certain criteria may be used
without a full job analysis if the user
can show the importance of the crite-
ria to the particular employment con-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved
For Release 1108 1 R IA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
other investigations of the validity of
that selection procedure.
(6) Operational use of selection pro-
cedures. Users should evaluate each se-
lection procedure to assure that it is
appropriate for operational use, in-
cluding establishment of cutoff scores
or rank ordering. Generally, if other
factors reman the same, the greater
the magnitude of the relationship
(e.g., coorelation coefficent) between
performance on a selection procedure
and one or more criteria of perform-
ance on the job, and the greater the
importance and number of aspects of
job performance covered by the crite-
ria, the more likely it is that the pro-
cedure will be appropriate for use. Re-
liance upon a selection procedure
which is significantly related to a cri-
terion measure, but which is based
upon a study involving a large number
of subjects 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 appropriateness of a
selection procedure is best evaluated
in each particular situation and there
are no minimum correlation 'coeffi-
cients applicable to all employment
situations. In determining whether a
selection procedure is appropriate for
operational use the following consider-
ations should also be taken into ac-
count: The degree of adverse impact of
the procedure, the availability of
other selection procedures of greater
or substantially equal validity.
(7) Overstatement of validity find-
ings. Users should avoid reliance upon
techniques which tend to overestimate
validity findings as a result of capital-
ization on chance unless an appropri-
ate safeguard is taken. Reliance upon
a few selection procedures or criteria
of successful job performance when
many selection procedures or criteria
of performance have been .studied, or
the use of optimal statistical weights
for selection procedures computed in
one sample, are techniques which tend
to inflate validity estimates as a result
of chance. Use of a large sample is one
safeguard: cross-validation is another.
(8) Fairness. This section generally
calls for studies of unfairness where
technically feasible. The concept of
fairness or unfairness of selection pro-
cedures is a developing concept. In ad-
dition, fairness studies generally re;
quire substantial numbers of employ-
ees in the job or group of jobs being
studied. For these reasons, the Federal
enforcement agencies recognize 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 per-
sons in a a job class, or test developers;
and that small users utilizing their
own selection procedures will general-
ly not be obligated to conduct such
studies because it will be technically
infeasible for them to do so.
(a) Unfairness defined. When mem-
bers of one race, sex, or ethnic group
characteristically obtain lower scores
on a selection procedure than mem-
bers of another group, and the differ-
ences in scores are not reflected in dif-
ferences in a measure of job perform-
ance, use of the selection procedure
may unfairly deny opportunities to
members of the group that obtains the
lower scores.
(b) Investigation of fairness. Where
a selection procedure results in an ad-
verse impact on a race, sex, or ethnic
group identified in accordance with
the classifications 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 feasi-
ble 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
procedure predicts fairly for the group
in question and for the same or similar
jobs, such evidence may be relied on in
connection with the selection proce-
dure at issue.
(c) General considerations in fair-
ness investigations. Users conducting
a study of fairness should review the
A.P.A. Standards regarding investiga-
tion of possible bias in testing. An in-
vestigation of fairness of a selection
procedure depends, on both evidence of
validity and the manner in which the
selection procedure is to be used in a
particular employment context. Fair-
ness of a selection procedure cannot
necessarily be specified in advance
without investigating these factors. In-
vestigation of fairness of a selection
procedure in samples where the range
of scores on selection procedures or
criterion measures is severely restrict-
ed for any subgroup sample (as corn-
pared to other subgroup samples) may
produce misleading evidence of unfair-
ness. That factor should accordingly
be taken into account in conducting
such studies and before reliance is
placed on the results.
(d) When unfairness is shown. If un-
fairness is demonstrated through a
showing that members of a particular
group perform better or poorer on the
job than their scores on the selection
procedure would . indicate through
comparison with how members of
other groups perform, the user may
either revise or replace the selection
instrument in accordance with these
guidelines, or may"continue to use the
selection instrument operationally
text. These criteria include but are not
limited to production rate, error rate,
tardiness, absenteeism, and length of
service. A standardized rating of over-
all work performance may be used
where a study of the job shows that it
is an appropriate criterion. Where per-
formance in training is used as a crite-
rion, success ih training should be
properly measured and the relevance
of the training should be shown either
through a comparsion of the content
of the training program with the criti-
cal or important work behavior(s) of
the job(s), or through a demonstration
of the relationship between measures
of performance in training and meas-
ures of job performance. Measures of
relative success in training include but
are not limited to instructor evalua-
tions, performance samples, or tests.
Criterion measures consisting of paper
and pencil tests will be closely re-
viewed for job relevance.
(4) Representativeness of the sample.
Whether the study is predictive or
concurrent, the sample subjects
should insofar as feasible be represent-
ative of the candidates normally avail-
able 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 available in the relevant job
market. In determining the represen-
tativeness of the sample in a concur-
rent 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
compared, attention should be given
to see that such samples are compara-
ble in terms of the actual job they per-
form, 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 differ-
ences; or that these factors are includ-
ed in the design of the study and their
effects identified.
(5) Statistical relationships. The
degree of relationship between selec-
tion procedure scores and criterion
measures should be examined and
computed, using professionally accept-
able statistical procedures. Generally,
a selection procedure is considered re-
lated to the criterion, for the purposes
of these guidelines, when the relation-
ship between performance on the pro-
cedure 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
significant relationship between a se-
lection procedure and job performance
should not necessarily discourage
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release NV/0M4-01114R000300050001-8
with appropriate revisions in its use to
assure compatibility between the prob-
ability of successful job performance
and the probability of being selected.
(e) Technical feasibility of fairness
studies. In addition to the general con-
ditions needed for technical feasibility
for the conduct of a criterion-related
study (see section 16, below) an inves-
tigation of fairness requires the fol-
lowing:
(i) An adequate sample of persons in
each group available for the study to
achieve findings of statistical signifi-
cance. Guidelines, do not require a user
to hire or promote persons on the
basis of group classifications for the
purpose of making it possible to con-
duct a study of fairness; but the user
has the obligation otherwise to comply
with these guidelines.
(ii) The samples for each group
should be comparable in terms of the
actual job they perform, 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 such factors
should be included in the design of the
study and their effects identified.
(f) Continued use of selection proce-
dures when fairness studies not feasi-
ble. If a study of fairness should other-
wise be performed, but is not techni-
cally feasible, a selection procedure
may be used which has otherwise met
the validity standards of these guide-
lines, unless the technical infeasibility
resulted from discriminatory employ-
ment practices which are demonstrat-
ed by facts other than past failure to
conform with requirements for valida-
tion of selection procedures. However,
when it becomes technically feasible
for the user to perform a study of fair-
ness and such a study is otherwise
called for, the user should conduct the
study of fairness.
C. Technical standards for content
validity studies.-(1) Appropriateness
of content validity studies. Users
choosing to validate a selection proce-
dure by a content validity strategy
should determine whether it is appro-
priate to conduct such a study in the
particular employment context. A se-
lection procedure can be supported by
a content validity strategy to the
extent that it is a representative
sample of the content of the job. Se-
lection procedures which purport to
measure knowledges, skills, or abilities
may in certain circumstances be justi-
fied by content validity, although they
may not be representative samples, if
the knowledge, skill, or ability meas-
ured by the selection procedure can be
operationally defined as provided in
section 14C(4) below, and if that
knowledge, skill, or ability is a neces-
sary prerequisite to successful job per-
formance.
A selection procedure based upon in-
ferences about mental processes
cannot be supported solely or primar-
ily on the basis of content validity.
Thus, a content strategy is not appro-
priate for demonstrating the validity
of selection procedures which purport
to measure traits or constructs, such
as intelligence, aptitude, personality,
commonsense, judgment, leadership,
and spatial ability. Content validity is
also not an appropriate strategy when
the selection procedure Involves
knowledges, skills, or abilities which
an employee will be expected to learn
on the job.
(2) Job analysis for content validity.
There should be a job analysis which
includes an analysis of the important
work behavior(s) required for success-
ful performance and their relative im-
portance and, if the behavior results
in work product(s), an analysis of the
work product(s). Any job analysis
should focus on the work behavior(s)
and the tasks associated with them. If
work behavior(s) are not observable,
the job analysis should identify and
analyze those aspects of the
behavior(s) that can be observed and
the observed work products. The work
behavior(s) selected for measurement
should be critical work behavior(s)
and/or important work behavior(s)
constituting most of the job.
(3) Development of selection proce-
dures. A selection. procedure designed
to measure the work behavior may be
developed specifically from the job
and job analysis in question, or may
have been previously developed by the
user, or by other users or by a test
publisher.
(4) Standards for demonstrating con-
tent validity. To demonstrate the con-
tent validity of a selection procedure,
a user should show that the
behavior(s) demonstrated in the selec-
tion procedure are a representative
sample of the behavior(s) of the job in
question or that the selection proce-
dure provides a representative sample
of the work product of the job. In the
case of a selection procedure measur-
ing a knowledge, skill, or ability, the
knowledge, skill, or ability being meas-
ured should be operationally defined.
In the case of a selection procedure
measuring a knowledge, the knowledge
being measured should be operational-
ly defined as that body of learned in-
formation which is used in and is a
necessary prerequisite for observable
aspects of work behavior of the job. In
the case of skills or abilities, the skill
or ability being measured should be
operationally defined in terms of ob-
servable aspects of work behavior of
the job. For any selection procedure
measuring a knowledge, skill, or abili-
ty the user should show that (a) the
selection procedure measures and is a
representative sample of that knowl-
edge, skill, or ability; and (b) that
knowledge, skill, or ability is used in
and is a necessary prerequisite to per-
formance of critical or important work
behavior(s). In addition, to be content
valid, a selection procedure measuring
a skill or ability should either closely
approximate an observable work be-
havior, or its product should closely
approximate an observable work prod-
uct. If a test purports to sample a
work behavior or to provide a sample
of a work product, the manner and
setting of the selection procedure and
its level and complexity should closely
approximate the work situation. The
closer the content and the context of
the selection procedure are to work
samples or work behaviors, the strong-
er is the basis for showing content va-
lidity. As the content of the selection
procedure less resembles a work be-
havior, or the setting and manner of
the administration of the selection
procedure less resemble the work situ-
ation, or the result less resembles a
work product, the less likely the selec-
tion procedure is to be content valid,
and the greater the need for other evi-
dence of validity.
(5) Reliability. The reliability of se-
lection procedures justified on the
basis of content validity should be a
matter of concern to the user. When-
ever it is feasible, appropriate statisti-
cal estimates should be made of the re-
liability of the selection procedure.
(6) Prior training or experience. A
requirement for or evaluation of spe-
cific prior training or experience based
on content validity, including a specifi-
cation of level or amount of training
or experience, should be justified on
the basis of the relationship between
the content of the training or experi-
ence and the content of the job for
which the training or experience is to
be required or evaluated. The critical
consideration is the resemblance be-
tween the specific behaviors, products,
knowledges, skills, or abilities in the
experience or training and the specific
behaviors, products, knowledges, skills,
or abilities required on the job, wheth-
er or not there is close resemblance be-
tween the experience or training as a
whole and the job as a whole.
(7) Content validity of training suc-
cess. Where a measure of success in a
training program is used as a selection
procedure and the content of a train-
ing program is justified on the basis of
content validity, the use should be jus-
tified on the relationship between the
content of the training program and
the content of the job.
(8) Operational use. A selection pro-
cedure which is supported on the basis
of content validity may be used for a
job if it represents a critical work be-
havior (i.e., a behavior which is neces-
sary for performance of the job) or
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 166-FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1978
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 RULES AND REGULATIONS 38303
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R00030h0050001-8
work behaviors whit constitute most empirical evidence from one or more process as an adverse impact, evi-
of the important parts of the job.
(9) Ranking based,on content valid-
ity studies. If a user can show, by a job
analysis or otherwise, that a higher
score on a content valid selection pro-
cedure is likely to result in better job
performance, the results may be used
to rank persons who score above mini-
mum levels. Where a selection proce-
dure supported solely or primarily by
content validity is used to rank job
candidates, the selection procedure
should measure those aspects of per-
formance which differentiate among
levels of job performance.
D. Technical standards for construct
validity studies.- (1) Appropriateness
of construct validity studies. Con-
struct validity is a more complex strat-
egy than either criterion-related or
content validity: Construct validation
is a relatively new and developing pro-
rlr cedure in the employment field, and
there is at present a lack of substan-
tial literature extending the concept
to employment practices. The user
should be aware that the effort to
'r obtain sufficient empirical support for
construct validity is both an extensive
and arduous effort involving a series
of research studies, which include cri-
terion related validity studies and
which may include content validity
studies. Users choosing to justify use
of a selection procedure by this strate-
gy should therefore take particular
care to assure that the validity study
meets the standards set forth below.
(2) Job analysis for construct valid-
ity studies. There should be a job anal-
ysis. This job analysis should show the
rrit work behavior(s) required for success-
ful performance of the job, or the
groups of jobs being studied, the criti-
cal or important work behavior(s) in
the job or group of jobs being studied,
and an identification of the
construct(s) believed to underlie suc-
cessful performance of these critical
or important work behaviors in the
vw 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
00 more critical or important work behav-
iors at a comparable level of complex-
ity.
(3) Relationship to the job. A selec-
tion procedure, should then be identi-
fied 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 construct and that the
construct is validly related to the per-
formance of critical or important work
behavior(s). The relationship between
the construct as measured by the se-
lection procedure and the related work
behavior(s) should be supported by
criterion related studies involving the
job or jobs in question which satisfy
the provisions of section 14B above.
(4) Use of construct validity study
without new criterion-related evi-
dence.-(a) Standards for use. Until
such time as professional literature
provides more guidance on the use of
construct validity in employment situ-
ations, 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 con-
ducted and the use of a criterion-relat-
ed validity study in this context meets
the standards for transportability of
criterion-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 behaviors at a comparable level
of complexity, and the evidence satis-
fies subparagraphs 14B (2) and (3)
above for those jobs with criterion-re-
lated validity evidence for those jobs,
the selection procedure may be used
for all the jobs to which the study per-
tains. If construct validity is to be gen-
eralized 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 subparagraphs 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 behavior(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 nei-
ther 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 agen-
cies will presume that the work
behavior(s) in each job are different.
If the work behaviors are not observ-
able, then evidence 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
information. Users of selection proce-
dures other than those users comply-
ing 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
(1) Simplified rccordkeeping for
users with less than .100 employees. In
order to minimize rccordkeeping bur-
dens on employers who employ one
hundred (100) or fewer employees, and
other users not required to file EEO-1,
et seq., reports, such users may satisfy
the requirements of this section 15 if
they maintain and have available rec-
ords showing, for eac a year:
(a) The number of persons hired,
promoted, and terminated for each
job, by sex, and whe:ce appropriate by
race and national origin;
(b) The number of applicants for
hire and promotion by sex and where
appropriate by race and national
origin; and
(c) The selection procedures utilized
(either standardized or not standard-
ized).
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. How-
ever, 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 ad-.
verse impact, the user should maintain
any available evidence of validity for
that procedure (see sections 7A and 8)..
(2) Information on impact.-(a) Col-
lection 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 process 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 as total selection
process for a job has an adverse
impact, the user should maintain and
have available records or other infor-
mation showing which components
have an adverse impact. Where the
total selection process for a job does
not have an adverse impact, informa-
tion need not be maintained for indi-
vidual components except in circum-
stances set forth in subsection
15A(2)(b) below. If the determination
of adverse impact is made using a pro-
cedure other than the "four-fifths
rule," as defined in the first sentence
of section 4D above, a justification,
consistent with section 4D above, for
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 38304 RULES AND REGULATIONS
Approved For Release 2001/98/14: CIA,RDP89-01114R0003Q0050Q01-?
verse impact should be available.
(b) When adverse impact has been
eliminated in the total selection proc-
ess. Whenever the total selection proc-
ess for a particular job has had an ad-
verse 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 infor-
mation on individual components of
the selection process required in the
preceding paragraph for the period in
which there was adverse impact. In ad-
dition, the user should continue to col-
lect such information for at least two
(2) years after the adverse impact has
been eliminated.
(c) When data insufficient to deter-
mine impact. Where there has been
an insufficient 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 information on individu-
al 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 adverse
impact as defined in section 4 above,
or until the job has changed substan-
tially.
(3) Documentation of validity evi-
dence.-(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 docu-
mentation evidence:
(i) Documentation evidence showing
criterion-related validity of the selec-
tion procedure (see section 15B,
below).
(ii) Documentation evidence showing
content validity of the selection proce-
dure (see section 15C, below).
(iii) Documentation evidence show-
ing construct validity of the selection
procedure (see section 15D, below).
(iv) Documentation evidence from,
other studies showing validity of the
selection procedure in the user's facili-
ty (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
complete and organized manner to
permit direct evaluation of the validity
of the selection procedure. Previously
written employer or consultant re-
ports of validity, or reports describing
validity studies completed before the
issuance of these guidelines are ac-
ceptable if they are complete in regard
to the documentation requirements
satisfied requirements of guidelines
which were in effect when the validity
study was completed. If they are not
complete, the required additional doc-
umentation 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 be evaluated in terms of
compliance with the requirements of
these guidelines.
(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 contain the information set forth
below. Evidence denoted by use of the
word "(Essential)" is considered criti-
cal. If information denoted essential is
not included, the report will be consid-
ered incomplete unless the user affir-
matively demonstrates either its una-
vailability due to circumstances
beyond the user's control or special
circumstances of the user's study
which make the information irrele-
vant. Evidence not so denoted is desir-
able 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
sections 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 orga-
nized and presented in tabular or
graphic form to the extent feasible.
B. Criterion-related validity studies.
Reports of criterion-related validity
for a selection procedure should in-
clude 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 informa-
tion, the date(s) and location(s) of the
administration of the selection proce-
dures and collection of criterion data,
and the time between collection of
data on selection procedures and crite-
rion measures should be provided (Es-
sential). If the study was conducted at
several locations, the address of each
location, including city and State,
should be shown.
(2) Problem and setting. An explicit
definition of the purposeis) of the
study and the circumstances in which
the study was conducted should be
provided. A description of existing se-
lection procedures and cutoff scores, if
any, should be provided.
(3) Job anlysis or review of job infor-
mation. A description of the proce-
dure used to analyze the job or group
of jobs, or to review the job informa-
tion should be provided (Essential).
Where a review of job information re-
sults in criteria which may be used
without a full job analysis (see section
14B(3)), the. basis for the selection of
these criteria s oul be reported (Es-
sential). Where a job analysis is re-
quired a complete description of the
work behavior(s) or work outcome(s),
and measures of their criticality or im-
portance should be provided (Essen-
tial). The report should describe the
basis on which the behavior(s) or
outcome(s) were determined to be
critical or important, such as the pro-
portion of time spent on the respective
behaviors, their level of difficulty,
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 desir-
able to provide the user's job title(s)
for the job(s) in question and the cor-
responding job title(s) and code(s)
from U.S. Employment Service's Dic-
tionary of Occupational Titles.
(5) Criterion measures. The bases
for the selection of the criterion meas-
ures should be provided, together with
references to the evidence considered
in making the selection of criterion
measures (essential). A full description
of all criteria on which data were col-
lected and means by which they were
observed, recorded, evaluated, and
quantified, should be provided (essen-
tial). If rating techniques are used as
criterion measures,. the appraisal
form(s) and instructions to the
rater(s) should be included as part of
the validation evidence, or should be
explicitly described and available (es-
sential). All steps taken to insure that
criterion measures are free from fac-
tors which would unfairly alter the
scores of members of any group
should be described (essential).
(6) Sample description. A description
of how the research sample was Identi-
fied and selected should be included
(essential). The race, sex, and ethnic
composition 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 de-
scription of how the research sample
compares with the relevant labor
market or work force, the method by
which the relevant labor market or
work force was defined, and a discus-
sion of the likely effects on validity of
differences between the sample and
the relevant labor market or work
force, are also desirable. Descriptions
of educational levels, length of service,
and age are also desirable.
(7) Description of selection proce-
dures. Any measure, combination of
measures, or procedure studied should
be completely and explicitly described
or attached (essential).,If commercial-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 ~gf/ /?4: CIARDP89-O1114ROOO3OOO5OOO1-8 38305
Approved For Release BZu -I CI
ly available selection procedures are (10) Uses and applications. The (3) Job analysis-content of the job.
studied, they should be described by methods considered for use of the se- A description of the method used to
title, form, and publisher (essential). lection procedure (e.g., as a screening analyze the job should be provided (es-
Reports of reliability estimates and device with a cutoff score, for group- sential): The work behavior(s), the as-
how they were established are desir- ing or ranking, or combined with other sociated tasks, and, if the behavior re-
able. procedures in a battery) and available
(8) Techniques and results. Methods evidence of their impact should be de-
used in analyzing data should be de- scribed (essential). This description
scribed (essential). Measures of central should include the rationale for choos-
tendency (e.g., means) and measures ing the method for operational use,
of dispersion (e.g., standard deviations and the evidence of the validity and
and ranges) for all selection proce- utility of the procedure as it is to be
dures and all criteria should be report- used (essential). The purpose for
ed for each race, sex, and ethnic group which the procedure is to be used (e.g.,
+rr which constitutes a significant factor hiring, transfer, promotion) should be
in the relevant labor market (essen- described (essential). If weights are as-
tial). The magnitude and direction of signed to different parts of the selec-
all relationships between selection tion procedure, these weights and the
IM procedures and criterion measures in- validity of the weighted composite
vestigated should be reported for each should be reported (essential). If the
relevant race, sex, and ethnic group selection procedure is used with a
and for the total group (essential). cutoff score, the user should describe
Where groups are too small to obtain the way in which normal expectations
10 reliable evidence of the magnitude of of proficiency within the work force
the relationship, need not be reported were determined and the way in which
separately. Statements regarding the the cutoff score was determined (es-
statistical significance of results sential).
it should be made (essential). Any statis- (11) Source data. Each user should
tical adjustments, such as for less then maintain records showing all pertinent
raters where individual sample are
perfect reliability or for restriction of information
y da-
score range in the selection procedure members and and about
or criterion should be described and used, in studies involving the e v v re
tion of selection procedures. These
explained; and uncorrected correlation records should be made available upon
coefficients should also be shown (es- request of a compliance agency. In the
sential). Where the statistical tech- case of individual sample members
nique categorizes continuous data, these data should include scores on
such as biserial correlation and the the selection procedure(s), scores on
phi coefficient, the categories and the criterion measures, age, sex, race, or
bases on which they were determined ethnic group status, and experience on
should be described and explained (es- the specific job on which the valida-
sential). Studies of test fairness should tion study was conducted, and may
be included where called for by the re- also include such things as education,
quirements of section 14B(8) (essen- training, and prior job experience, but
tial). These studies should include the should not include names and social
rationale by which a selection proce- security numbers. Records should be
dure was determined to be fair to the maintained which show the ratings
group(s) in question. Where test fair- given to each sample member by each
ness or unfairness has been demon- rater.
strated on the basis of other studies, a (12) Contact person. The name, mail-
bibliography of the relevant studies ing address, and telephone number of
+M should be included (essential). If the the person who may be contacted for
bibliography includes unpublished further information about the validity
studies, copies of these studies, or ade- study should be provided (essential).
quate abstracts or summaries, should (13) Accuracy and completeness. The
so be attached (essential). Where revi- report should describe the steps taken
sions have been made in a selection to assure the accuracy and complete-
procedure to assure compatibility be- ness of the collection, analysis, and
tween successful job performance and report of data and results.
the probability of being selected, the C. Content validity studies. Reports
w studies underlying such revisioIs of content validity for a selection pro-
should be included (essential). All sta- cedure should include the following in-
tisticdl results should be organized and formation:
presented by relevant race, sex, and (1) User(s), location(s) and date(s) of
ethnic group (essential). study. Dates and location(s) of the job
tigated and available evidence of their
impact should be identified (essential).
1m The scope, method, and findings of
the investigation, and the conclusions
reached in light of the findings,
should be fully described (essential).
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 description of existing se-
lection procedures and cutoff scores, if
any, should be provided.
suits in a work product, the work prod-
ucts should be completely described
(essential). Measures of criticality
and/or importance of the work
behavior(s) and the method of deter-
mining these measures should be pro-
vided (essential). Where the job analy-
sis also identified the knowledges,
skills, and abilities used in work
behavior(s),'an operational definition
for each knowledge in terms of a body
of learned information and for each
skill and ability in terms of observable
behaviors and outcomes, and the rela-
tionship between each knowledge,
skill, or ability and each work behav-
ior, as well as the method used to de-
termine this relationship, should be
provided (essential). The work situa-
tion should be described, including the
setting in which work behavior(s) are
performed, and where appropriate, the
manner in which knowledges, skills, or
abilities are used, and the complexity
and difficulty of the knowledge, skill,
or ability as used in the work
behavior(s).
(4) Selection procedure and its con-
tent. Selection procedures, including
those constructed by or for the user,
specific training requirements, com-
posites of selection procedures, and
any other procedure supported by con-
tent validity, should be completely and
explicitly described or attached (essen-
tial). If commercially available selec-
tion procedures are used, they should
be described by title, form, and pub-
lisher (essential). The behaviors meas-
ured or sampled by the selection pro-
cedure should be explicitly described
(essential). Where the selection proce-
dure purports to measure a knowledge,
skill, or ability, evidence that the se-
lection procedure measures and is - a
representative sample of the knowl-
edge, skill, or ability should be pro-
vided (essential).
(5) Relationship between the selec-
tion procedure and the job. The evi-
dence demonstrating; that the selec-
tion procedure is a representative
work 'sample, a representative sample
of the work behavior(s), or a repre-
sentative sample of a knowledge, skill,
or ability as used as a part of a work
behavior, and necessary for that be-
havior should be provided (essential).
The user should identify the work
behavior(s) which each item or part of
the selection procedure is intended to
sample or measure (essential). Where
the selection procedure purports to
sample a work behavior or to provide a
sample of a work product, a compari-
son should be provided of the manner,
setting, and the level of complexity of
the selection procedure with those of
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 166-FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1978
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114RO00300050001-8
 38306 RULES AND REGULATIONS
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
the work situation (essential). If any
steps were taken to reduce adverse
impact on a race, sex, or ethnic group
in the content of the procedure or in
its administration, these steps should
be described. Establishment of time
limits, if any, and how these limits are
related to the speed with which duties
must be performed on the job, should
be explained. Measures of central
tend- ency (e.g., means) and measures
of dispersion. (e.g., standard devi-
ations) and estimates of realibility
should be reported for all selection
procedures if available. Such reports
should be made for relevant race, sex,
and ethnic. subgroups, at least on a
statistically reliable sample basis.
(6) Alternative procedures investi-
gated. The alternative selection proce-
dures investigated and available evi-
dence of their impact should be identi-
fied (essential). The scope, method,
and findings of the investigation, and
the conclusions reached in light of the
findings, should be fully described (es-
sential).
(7) Uses and applications. The
methods considered for use of the se-
lection procedure (e.g., as a screening
device with a cutoff score, for group-
ing or ranking, or combined with other
procedures in a battery) and available
evidence of their impact should be de-
scribed (essential). This description
should include the rationale for choos-
ing the method for operational 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 the selection
procedure is used with a cutoff score,
the user should describe the way in
which normal expectations of profi-
ciency within the work force were de-
termined and the way in which the
cutoff score was determined (essen-
tial). In addition, if the selection pro-
cedure is to be used for ranking, the
user should specify the evidence show-
ing that a higher score on the selec-
tion procedure is likely to result in
better job performance.
(8) Contact person. The name, mail-
ing address, and telephone number of
the person who may be contacted for
further information about the validity
study should be provided (essential).
(9) Accuracy and completeness. The
report should describe the steps taken
to assure the accuracy and complete-
ness of the collection, analysis, and
report of data and results.
D. Construct validity studies. Re-
ports of construct validity for a selec-
tion procedure should include the fol-
lowing information:
(1) User(s), location(s), and date(s)
of study. Date(s) and location(s) of the
job analysis and the gathering of
other evidence called for by these
guidelines should be provided (essen-
tial).
(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 se-
lection procedures and cutoff scores, if
any, should be provided.
(3) Construct definition. A clear
definition of the construct(s) which
are believed to underlie successful per-
formance of the critical or important
work behavior(s) should be provided
(essential). This definition should in-
clude the levels of construct perform-
ance 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 de-
scription of the way in which the defi-
nition and measurement of the con-
struct was developed and the psycho-
logical theory underlying it (essential).
Any quantitative data which identify
or define the job constructs, 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 de-
scription of the work behavior(s) and,
to the extent appropriate, work out-
comes and measures of their criticality
and/or importance should be provided
(essential). The report should also de-
scribe the basis on which the
behavior(s) or outcomes were deter-
mined to be important, such as their
level of difficulty, their frequency of
performance, the consequences of
error or other appropriate factors (es-
sential). Where jobs are grouped or
compared for the purposes of general-
izing validity evidence, the work
behavior(s) and work product(s) for
each of the jobs should be described,
and conclusions concerning the simi-
larity of the jobs in terms of observ-
able work behaviors or work products
should be made (essential).
(5) Job titles and codes. It is desir-
able to provide the selection procedure
user'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 dictio-
nary of occupational titles.
(6) Selection procedure. The selec-
tion procedure used as a measure of
the construct should be completely
and explicitly described or attached
(essential). If commercially available
selection procedures are used, they
should be identified by title, form and
publisher (essential). The research evi-
dence of the relationship between the
selection procedure and the construct,
such as factor structure, should be in-
cluded (essential). Measures of central
tendency, variability and reliability of
the selection procedure should be pro-
vided (essential). Whenever feasible,
these measures should be provided
separately for each relevant race, sex
and ethnic group.
(7) Relationship to job performance.
The criterion-related study(ies) and
other empirical evidence of the rela- Im
tionship between the construct meas-
ured by the selection procedure and
the related work behavior(s) for the
job or jobs in question should be pro-
vided (essential). Documentation of 40
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 ef-
fective date of these guidelines (essen-
tial). Where a study pertains to a
group of jobs, and, on the basis of the
study, validity is asserted for a job in
viors and the observed work products
for each of the jobs should be de-
scribed (essential). Any other evidence
used in determining whether the work
behavior(s) in each of the jobs is the
same 'should be fully described (essen-
tial).
(8) Alternative procedures investi-
dures investigated and available evi-
dence of their impact should be identi-
fied (essential). The scope, method,
and findings of the investigation, and
the conclusions reached in light of the
findings should be fully described (es-
sential).
(9) Uses and applications. The
lection procedure (e.g., as a screening
device with a cutoff score, for group-
ing or ranking, or combined with other
procedures in a battery) and available
evidence of their impact should be de-
scribed (essential). This description
should include the rationale for choos-
ing the method for operational use,
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 selec-
tion procedure, these weights and the
validity of the weighted composite
should be reported (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
the cutoff score was determined (es-
sential).
(10) Accuracy and completeness. The
report should describe the steps taken
to assure the accuracy and complete-
ness of the collection, analysis, and
report of data and results.
(11) Source data. Each user should
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 RULES AND REGULATIONS 33307
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP8g (11114R00 39rT0 (~091ce' R sex, or ethnic
.,r information relating to its study of (2) Evidence from content validity -mpac?
construct validity.
(12) Contact person. The name, mail-
11 ing address, and telephone number of
the individual who may be contacted
for further information about the va-
lidity study should be provided (essen-
ti al).
E. Evidence of validity from other
w 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
compiled in a manner similar to that
wrr required in the appropriate section of
this section 15 above. In addition, the
following evidence should be supplied:
(1) Evidence from criterion-related
validity studies.-a. Job information.
A description of the important job
behavior(s) of the user's job and the
basis on which the behaviors were de-
termined to be important should be
provided (essential). A full description
of the basis for determining that these
important work behaviors are the
same as those of the job in the origi-
nal study (or studies) should be pro-
- vided (essential).
b. Relevance of criteria. A full de-
scription. of the basis on which the cri-
teria used in the original studies are
determined to be relevant for the user
should be provided (essential).
c. Other variables. The similarity of
important applicant pool or sample
characteristics reported in the original
ern studies to those of the user should be
described (essential). A description of
the comparison 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 (essential).
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 valid-
ity studies (essential).
e. Bibliography. A bibliography of
IS reports of validity of the selection pro-
cedure for the job or jobs in question
should be provided (essential). Where
any of the studies included an investi-
gation of test fairness, the results of
60 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 unpub-
lished studies are the sole source of va-
lidity evidence they should be de-
scribed in detail or attached (essen-
tial). If these studies are not available,
the name and address of the source,
an adequate abstract or summary of
the validity study and data, and a con-
tact person in the source organization
should be provided (essential).
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 coopera-
tive studies. Where a selection proce-
dure has been validated through a co-
operative study, evidence that the
study satisfies the requirements of sec-
tions 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 pro-
visions of this section 15 for the
higher level job or jobs, and in addi-
tion, the user should provide: (1) a de-
scription of the job progression struc-
ture, formal or informal; (2) the data
showing how many employees pro-
gress 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 knowledge, skill or ability is re-
quired for the higher level job and the
basis for the conclusion that the
knowledge, skill or ability is not ex-
pected to develop from the training or
experience on the job.
H. Interim use of selection proce-
dures. 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 availa-
ble (1) substantial evidence of validity
for the procedure, and (2) a report
showing the date on which the study
to gather the additional evidence com-
menced, the estimated completion
date of the study, and a description of
the data to be collected (essential).
DEFINITIONS
SEc. 16. Definitions. The following
definitions shall apply throughout
these guidelines:
A. Ability. A present competence to
perform an observable behavior or a
behavior which results in an observ-
able product.
B. Adverse impact. A substantially
different rate of selection in hiring,
promotion, or other employment deci-
sion which works to the disadvantage
of members of a race, sex, or ethnic
group. See section 4 of these guide-
lines.
C. Compliance with these guidelines.
Use of a selection procedure is in com-
pliance with these guidelines if such
use has been validated in accord.with.
these guidelines (as defined below), or
if such use does not result in adverse
group (see section 4. above), or, -n un-
usual circumstances, if use of the pro-
cedure is otherwise justified in accord
with Federal law. See section 6B,
above. -
D. Content validity. Demonstrated
by data showing that the content of a
selection procedure is representative
of important aspects of performance
on the job. See section 5B and section
14C.
E. Construct validity. Demonstrated
by data showing that the selection
procedure measures the degree to
which candidates have identifiable
characteristics which have been deter-
mined to be important for successful
job performance. See section 5B and
section 14D.
F. Criterion-related validity. Demon-
strated by empirical data showing that
the selection procedure is predictive of
or significantly correlated with impor-
tant elements of work behavior. See
sections- 5B and 14B.
G. Employer. Any employer subject
to the provisions of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, including
State or local governments and any
Federal agency subject to the provi-
sions of section 717 of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, and any Fed-
eral contractor or subcontractor or
federally assisted construction con-
tractor or subcontactor covered by Ex-
ecutive Order 11246, as amended.
H. Employment agency. Any employ-
ment agency subject to the provisions
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended.
I. Enforcement action. For the pur-
poses of section 4 a proceeding by a.
Federal enforcement agency such as a.
lawsuit or an administrative proceed-
ing leading to debarment from or
withholding, suspension, or termina-
tion of Federal Government contracts
or the suspension or withholding of
Federal Government funds; but not a
finding of reasonable cause or a concil-
ation process or the issuance of right
to sue letters under title VII or under
Executive Order 11246 where such
finding, conciliation, or issuance of
notice of right to sue is based upon an
individual complaint,
J. Enforcement agency. Any agency
of the executive branch of the Federal
Government which adopts these
guidelines for purposes of the enforce-
ment of the equal employment oppor-
tunity laws or which has responsibility
for securing compliance with them.
K. Job analysis. A detailed state-
ment of work behaviors and other in-
formation relevant to the job.
L. Job description. A general state-
ment of job duties and responsibilities.
M. Knowledge. A body of informa-
tion applied directly to the perform-
ance of a function.
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 38308 RULES AND REGULATIONS
ADDroved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RQP89 ~1114F 000300050001-8
N: Labor organiz on. ny labor or- extent it may be covered by Federal s oul serve as policy guidance for
ganization subject to the provisions of equal employment opportunity law, other Federal agencies as well.
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amend- which uses a selection procedure as a (1) Equal employment opportunity is
ed, and any committee subject thereto basis for any employment decision. the law of the land. In the public mss,
controlling apprenticeship or other Whenever an employer, labor organi- sector of our society this means that
training. zation, or employment agency is re- all persons, regardless of race, color,
0.. Observable. Able to be seen, quired by law to restrict recruitment religion, sex, or national origin shall
heard, or otherwise perceived by a for any occupation to those applicants have equal access to positions in the
person other than the person perform- who have met licensing or certification public service limited only by their 40
ing the action. requirements, the licensing or certify- ability to do the job. There is ample
P. Race, sex, or ethnic group. Any ing authority to the extent it may be evidence in all sectors of our society
group of persons identifiable on the covered by Federal equal employment that such equal access frequently has
grounds of race, color, religion, sex, or opportunity law will be considered the been denied to members of certain
national origin. user with respect to those licensing or groups because of ' their sex, racial, or
Q. Selection procedure. Any meas- certification requirements. Whenever ethnic characteristics. The remedy for
ure, combination of measures, or pro- a State employment agency or service such past and present discrimination
cedure used as a basis for any employ- does no more than administer or moni- is twofold.
ment decision. Selection procedures in- tor a procedure as permitted by De- On the one hand, vigorous enforce- 10
t
t
f L
l
b
ti
d
l
d
th
f
ll
f
men
a
or regu
a
ons, an
o
e
u
e
assessment par
e
u
range o
ment of the laws against discrimina-
techniques from traditional paper and does so without making referrals or tion is essential. But equally, and per-
pencil tests, performance tests, train- taking any other action on the basis of haps even more important are affirma-
ing programs, or probationary periods the results, the State employment tive, voluntary efforts on the part of
and physical, educational, and work agency will not be deemed to be a user. public employers to assure that posi-
experience requirements through in- X. Validated in accord with these tions in the public service are genuine-
formal or casual interviews and uns- guidelines or properly validated. A ly and equally accessible to qualified
cored application forms. demonstration that one or more valid- persons, without regard to their sex,
R. Selection rate. The proportion of ity study or studies meeting the stand- racial, or ethnic characteristics. With-
applicants or candidates who are ards of these guidelines has been con- out such efforts equal employment op-
hired, promoted, or otherwise selected. ducted, including investigation and, portunity is no more than a wish. The
S. Should. The term "should" as where appropriate, use of suitable al- importance of voluntary affirmative
used in these guidelines is intended to ternative selection procedures as con- action on the part of employers is un-
achieve compliance with the guide- duced evidence of validity sufficient to Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order
lines, while recognizing that there are warrant use of the procedure for the 11246, and related laws and regula-
circumstances where alternative intended purpose under the standards tions-all of which emphasize volun-
courses of action are open to users. of these guidelines. tary action to achieve equal employ-
T. Skill. A present, observable com- Y. Work behavior. An activity per- ment opportunity.
petence to perform a learned psycho- formed to achieve the objectives of As with most management objec-
moter act. the job. Work behaviors involve ob- tives, a systematic plan based on sound
U. Technical feasibility. The exist- servable (physical) components and organizational analysis and problem
ence of conditions permitting the con- unobservable (mental) components. A identification is crucial to the accom-
duct of meaningful criterion-related work behavior consists of the perform- plishment of affirmative action objec-
validity studies. These conditions in- ante of one or more tasks. Knowl- tives. For this reason, the Council
elude: (1) An adequate sample of per- edges, skills, and abilities are notbeha- urges all State and local governments
sons available for the study to achieve viors, although they may be applied In to develop and implement results ori-
findings of statistical significance; (2) work behaviors. ented_ affirmative action plans which Am
having or being able to obtain a suffi- APPENDIX deal with the problems so identified.
cient range of scores on the selection The following paragraphs 'are in-
procedure and job performance meas- 17. Policy statement on affirmative tended to assist State and local gov-
ures to produce validity results which action (see section 13B). The Equal ernments by illustrating the kinds of
can be expected to be representative Employment Opportunity Coordinat- analyses and activities which may be
of the results if the ranges normally ing Council was established by act of appropriate for a public employer's
expected were utilized; and (3) having Congress in 1972, and charged with re- voluntary affirmative ? action plan.
or being able to devise unbiased, reli- sponsibility for developing and imple- This statement does not address reme-
able and relevant measures of job per- menting agreements and policies de- dies imposed after'a finding of unlaw- ,m
formance or other criteria of employee signed, among other things, to elimi- ful discrimination.
adequacy. See section 14B(2). With re- nate conflict and inconsistency among (2) Voluntary affirmative action to
spect to investigation of possible un- the agencies of the Federal Govern- assure equal employment opportunity
fairness, the same considerations are ment responsible for administering is appropriate at any stage of the em-
applicable to each group for which the Federal law prohibiting discrimination ployment process. The first step in the
study is made. See section 14B(8). on grounds of race, color, sex, religion, construction of any affirmative action
V. Unfairness of selection procedure. and national origin. This statement is plan should be an analysis of the em-
A condition in which members of one issued as an initial response to the re- ployer's work force to determine
race, sex, or ethnic group characteris- quests of a number of State and local whether precentages of sex, race, or
tically obtain lower scores on a selec- officials for clarification of the Gov- ethnic groups in individual job classifi-
tion 'procedure than members of an- ernment's policies concerning the role cations are substantially similar to the
other group, and the differences are of affirmative action in the overall precentages of those groups available
not reflected in differences in meas- equal employment opportunity pro- in the relevant job market who possess
ores of job performance. See section gram. While the Coordinating Coun- the basic job-related qualifications.
14B(7). cil's adoption of this statement ex- When substantial disparities are
W. User. Any employer, labor organi- presses only the views of the signatory found through such analyses, each ele-
zation, employment agency, or licens- agencies concerning this important ment of the overall selection process
ing or certification board, to the subject, the principles set forth below should be examined to determine
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 RULES AND REGULATIONS 38309
Approved clu a upon t001bility 4 ? CIA-R1DP8t9-0111 rcinrPs00 0%mloyee Selection
which elements operate to exc ude upon e a l I y of 'the app Ican s) to
persons on the basis of sex, race, or do the work. Such plans should not re-
ethnic group. Such elements include, quire the selection of the unqualified,
but are not limited to, recruitment, or the unneeded, nor should they re-
testing, ranking certification, inter- quire the selection of persons on the
,,view, recommendations for selection, basis of race, color, sex, religion, or na-
hiring, promotion, etc. The examina- tional origin. Moreover, while the
tion of each element of the selection Council believes that this statement
process should at a minimum include a
determination of its validity in predict-
ing job performance.
(3) When an employer has reason to
believe that its selection procedures
have the exclusionary effect described
in paragraph 2 above, it should initiate
affirmative steps to remedy the situa-
tion. Such steps, which in design and
execution may be race, color, sex, or
ethnic "conscious," include, but are
not limited to, the following:
(a) The establishment of a long-term
goal, and short-range, interim goals
and timetables for the specific job
classifications, all of which should
take into account the availability of
basically qualified persons in the rele-
vant job market;
(b) A recruitment program designed
to attract qualified members of the
group in question;
(c) A systematic effort to organize
work and redesign jobs in ways that
provide opportunities for persons lack-
ing "journeyman" level knowledge or
skills to enter and, with appropriate
training, to progress in a career field;
(d) Revamping selection instruments
or procedures which have not yet been
validated in order to reduce or elimi-
nate exclusionary effects on particular
groups in particular job classifications;
(e) The initiation of measures de-
signed to assure that members of the
affected group who are qualified to
perform the job are included within
the pool of persons from which the se-
lecting official makes the selection;
(f) A systematic effort to provide
career advancement training, both
classroom and on-the-job, to employ-
ees locked into dead end jobs; and
(g) The - establishment of a system
for regularly monitoring the effective-
ness of the particular affirmative
action program, and procedures for
making timely adjustments in this
program where effectiveness is not
(4) The goal of any affirmative
action plan should be achievement of
genuine equal employment opportuni-
ty for all qualified persons. Selection
under such plans should be based
should serve to assist State and local
employers, as well as Federal agencies,
it recognizes that affirmative action
cannot be viewed as a standardized
program which must be accomplished
in the same way at all times in all
places.
Accordingly, the Council has not at-
tempted to set forth here either the
minimum or maximum voluntary
steps that employers may take to deal
with their respective situations.
Rather, the Council recognizes that
under applicable authorities, State
and local employers have flexibility to
formulate affirmative action plans
that are best suited to their particular
situations. In this manner, the Council
believes that affirmative action pro-
grams will best serve the goal of equal
employment opportunity.
Respectfully submitted,
HAROLD R. TYLER, Jr.,
Deputy Attorney General and
Chairman of the Equal Em-
ployment Coordinating Coun-
cil.
MICHAEL H, MOSKOW,
Under Secretary of Labor.
ETHEL BENT WALSH,
Acting Chairman, Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity Com-
mission.
ROBERT E. HAMPTON,
Chairman, Civil Service Com-
mission.
ARTHUR E. FLEMMING,
Chairman, Commission on Civil
Rights.
Because of its equal. employment op-
portunity responsibilities under the
State and Local Government Fiscal
Assistance Act of 1972 (the revenue
sharing act), the Department of Treas-
ury was invited to participate in the
formulation of this policy statement;
and it concurs and joins in the adop-
tion of this policy statement.
Done this 26th day of August 1976.
RICHARD ALBRECHT,
General Counsel,
Department of the Treasury.
Section 18. Citations. The official
title of these guidelines is "Uniform
Procedures (1978). The Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures (1978) are intended to es-
tablish a uniform Federal position in
the area of prohibiting discrimination
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. (1978); 43
FR -- (August 25, 19T8)."
When the guidelines are cited in
connection with the activities of one
of the issuing agencies, a specific cita-
tion to the regulations of that agency
can be added at the end of the above
citation. The specific additional cita-
tions are as follows:
Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission
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 guide-
lines, the section number immediately
preceding the title of the guidelines
will be from these guidelines series 1-
18. If a section number from the codi-
fication for an individual agency is
needed it can also be added at the end
of the agency citation. For example,
section 6A of these guidelines could be
cited for EEOC as follows: "Section
6A, Uniform Guidelines on Employee
Selection Procedures (1978); 43 FR
--, (August 25, 1978); 29 CFR Part
1607, section 6A.'"
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
Chair, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
ALAN K. CAMPBELL,
Chairman,
Civil Service Commission.
RAY MARSHALL,
. Secretary of Labor.
GRIFFIN B. BELL,
A ttorney General.
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 [6570-061
Approved
RULES AND REGULATIONS
For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
published at 29 CFR parts 1607 (Equal on Employee Selection Procedures
Employment Opportunity Commis- (1978), 43 FR-- (August 25, 1978)."
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
CHAPTER 1-CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION
PART 300-EMPLOYMENT
(GENERAL)
Uniform Guidelines on Employee
Selection Procedures (1978)
The Uniform Guidelines on Employ-
ee Selection Procedures (1978) which
are printed at the beginning of this
part IV in today's FEDERAL REGISTER
are adopted by the Civil Service Com-
mission, in conjunction with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion, Department of Justice, and the
Department of Labor to establish uni-
formity in prohibiting discrimination
in employment practices on grounds of
race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin. Cross reference documents are
Sion), 28 CFR 50.14 (Department of
Justice), and 41 CFR 60-3 (Depart-
ment of Labor) elsewhere in this issue
of the FEDERAL REGISTER.
By virtue of the authority vested in
it by sections 3301, 3302, 7151, 7154,
and 7301 of title 5 and section 4763(b)
of title 42, United States Code, and
Executive Order 10577, 3 CFR 1954-58
comp. page 218 and Executive Order
11478, 3 CFR 1959 comp. 133, and sec-
tion 717 of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16),
the Civil Service Commission amends
title 5, part 300, subpart A, ? 300.103(c)
of the Code of Federal Regulations to
read as follows:
? 300.103 Basic requirements.
"(c) Equal employment opportunity.
An employment practice shall not dis-
criminate on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, age, national origin, par-
tisan political affiliation, or other non-
merit factor. Employee selection pro-
cedures shall meet the standards es-
tablished by the "Uniform Guidelines
The Civil Service Commission re-
scinds the Guidelines on Employee Se-
lection Procedures, 41 FR 51752, Fed-
eral Personnel Manual part 900, sub-
part F and adopts the Uniform Guide-
lines on Employee Selection Proce-
dures (1978), to be issued as identical
supplement appendices to supple-
ments 271-1, Development of Qualifi-
cation Standards; 271-2, Tests and
Other Applicant Appraisal Procedures:
335-1, Evaluation of Employees for
Promotion, and Internal Placement;
and 990-1 (Book III), part 900, subpart
F, Administration of Standards for a
Merit System of Personnel Adminis-
tration of the Federal Personnel
Manual in order to insure the examin-
ing, testing standards, and employ-
ment practices are not affected by dis-
crimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex or national origin.
Effective date: September 25, 1978.
ALAN K. CAMPBELL,
Chairman,
Civil Service Commission.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 166-FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1978
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
go
 RULES AND REGULATIONS
A Q 0 For Release 2001 /08/14 : CtIA 8&i01i 1 t4 R0Q0 ,OQ ,0Q1-8
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE prohibiting discrimination in employ-
ment practices on grounds of race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Cross reference documents are pub-
lished at 5 CFR 300 103(c) (Civil Serv-
CHAPTER 1-DEPARTMENT OF ice Commission) 29 CFR 1607 (Equal
Uniform Guidelines on Employee
Selection Procedures (1978)
The Uniform Guidelines on Employ-
ee Selection Procedures which are pro-
vided at the beginning of this part IV
in today's FEDERAL REGISTER are adopt-
ed by the Department of Justice, in
conjunction with the Civil Service
Commission, Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission, and the De-
partment of Labor to establish a uni-
Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion), and 41 CFR 60-3 (Department
of Labor), elsewhere in this issue of
the FEDERAL REGISTER.
By virtue of the authority vested in
me by 28 U.S.C. 509,and 5 U.S.C. 301,
Sec. 50.14 of part 50 of chapter 1 of
title 28 of the Code of Federal Regula-
tions is amended by substituting the
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Se-
lection Procedures (1978) for part I
through part IV.
Effective date: September 25, 1978.
GRIFFIN B. BELL,
Attorney General.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 166-FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1978
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 38312 RULES AND REGULATIONS
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01 148000300050001-8
1.6570-061
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
CHAPTER XIV-EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
PART 1607-UNIFORM GUIDELINES
ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCE-
DURES (1978)
The Uniform Guidelines on Employ-
ee Selection Procedures which are
printed at the beginning of this part
IV in today's FEDERAL REGISTER are
adopted by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, in conjunc-
tion with the Civil Service Commis-
sion, Department of Justice, and the
Department of Labor to establish a
uniform Federal position in the area
of prohibiting discrimination in em-
ployment practices on grounds of race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Cross reference documents are pub-
lished at 5 CFR 300.103(c) (Civil Serv-
ice Commission), 28 CFR 50.14 (De-
partment of Justice) and 41 CFR 60-3
Department of Labor), elsewhere in
this issue.
By virtue of the authority vested in
it by sections 713 and 709 of title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78
Stat. 265), as amended by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Act of 1972
(Pub. L. 92-261), (42 U.S.C. 2000e-12
and 2000e-8), the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission hereby re-
vises part 1607 of chapter XIV of title
29 of the Code of Federal Regulations
by rescinding the Guidelines on Em-
ployee Selection Procedures (see 35
FR 12333, August 1, -1970; and 41 FR
51984, November 24, 1976) and adopt-
ing the Uniform Guidelines on Em-
ployee Selection Procedures (1978) as
a new part 1607.
Effective date: September 25, 1978.
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
Chair.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
B. Consideration of Suitable Al ernative (2) Analysis of the Job
Selection Procedures (3) Criterion Measures
1607.4 Information on Impact (4) Representativeness of the Sample
A. Records Concerning Impact (5) Statistical Relationships
B. Applicable Race, Sex, and Ethnic (6) Operational Use of Selection Proce-
Groups for Recordkeeping dures
Evaluation of Selection Rates. The (7) Over-Statement of Validity Findings
"Bottom Line" (8) Fairness
D. Adverse Impact and the "Four-Fifths (a) Unfairness Defined
Rule" (b) Investigation of Fairness
E. Consideration of User's Equal Employ- (e) General Considerations in Fairness
ment Opportunity Posture Investigations
1607.5 General Standards for Validity (d) When Unfairness is Shown
Studies (e) Technical Feasibility of Fairness
A. Acceptable Types of Validity Studies Studies
B. Criterion-Related, Content, and Con- (f) Continued Use of Selection Proce-
struct Validity dures When Fairness Studies Not Feasi-
C. Guidelines Are Consistent With Profes- ble
sional Standards C
Technical Standards for Content Valid-
.
D. Need for Documentation of Validity ity Studies 1
E. Accuracy and Standardization (1) Appropriateness of Content Validity
F. Caution Against Selection on Basis of Studies
Knowledge-, Skills, or Abilities (2) Job Analysis for Content Validity
Learned in Brief Orientation Period (3) Development of Selection Procedure
G. Method of Use of Selection Procedures (4) Standards for Demonstrating Con- 40,
H. Cutoff Scores
1. Use of Selection Procedures for Higher tent Validity
Level Jobs (5) Reliability
Prior Training or Experience
(6)
P
d
roce
ures
J. Interim use of Selection
K. Review of Validity Studies for Cur- (7) Training Success
(8) Operational Use
rency
1607.6 Use of Selection Procedures Which (9) Ranking Based on
have Not Been Validated Studies
A. Use of Alternate Selection Procedures D. Technical Standards for Construct Va-
To Eliminate Adverse Impact lidity Studies
B. Where Validity Studies Cannot or Need (1) Appropriateness of Construct Valid-
Not Be Performed ity Studies
(1) Where Informal or Unscored Proce- (2) Job Analysis Required in Construct
dures Are Used Validity Studies
(2) Where Formal and Scored Proce- (3) Relationship to the Job
dures Are Used (4) Use of Construct Validity Study
1607.7 Use of Other Validity Studies Without New Criterion-Related Evidence
A. Validity Studies Not Conducted by the (a) Standards for Use
User (b) Determination of
B. Use of Criterion-Related Validity Evi- Behaviors
dente From Other Sources
(1) Validity Evidence
(2) Job Similarity
(3) Fairness Evidence
C. Validity Evidence
Study
D. Other Significant Variables
1607.8 Cooperative Studies
A. Encouragement of Cooperative Studies
B. Standards for Use of Cooperative Stud-
ies
1607.9 No Assumption of Validity
A. Unacceptable Substitutes for Evidence
of Validity
B. Encouragement of Professional
vision
1607.10 Employment
ployment Services
A. Where Selection
vised by Agency
B. Where Selection
DOCUMENTATION OF IMPACT AND VALIDITY
EVIDENCE
1607.15 Documentation of Impact and ` a-
lidity Evidence
A. Required Information
(1) Simplified Recordkeeping for Users
With Less Than 100 Employees
(2) Information on Impact
(a) Collection of Information
Impact
(b) When Adverse Impact Has Been Aft
Eliminated in the Total Selection Proc-
ess
(c) When Data Insufficient To Deter-
mine Impact
(3) Documentation of Validity Evidence
(a) Type of Evidence
(b) Form of Report
(c) Completeness
B. Criterion-Related Validity Studies
1607.1 Statement of Purpose
vised Elsewhere
A. Need for Uniformity-Issuing Agencies
1607.11 Disparate Treatment
Study
B. Purpose of Guidelines
1607.12 Retesting of Applicants
(2) Problem and Setting
C. Relation to Prior Guidelines
1607.13 Affirmative Action
(3) Job Analysis or Review of Job Infor-
1607.2 Scope
A. Affirmative Action Obligations
mation
A. Application of Guidelines
B. Encouragement of Voluntary Affirma-
(4) Job Titles and Codes
B. Employment Decisions
tive Action Programs
(5) Criterion Measures
C. Selection Procedures
(6) Sample Description
D. Limitations
(7) Description of Selection Procedure
E. Indian Preference Not Affected
1607.14 Technical Standards for Validity
(8) Techniques and Results
1607.3 Discrimination Defined: Relation
Studies
ship Between Use of Selection Proce
A. Validity Studies Should Be Based on
(1u) Uses and applications
dures and Discrimination
Review of Information About the Job
(11) Source Data
A. Procedure Having Adverse Impact Con
B. Technical Standards for Criterion-Re-
(12) Contact Person
stitutes Discrimination Unless Justi
lated Validity Studies
(13) Accuracy and Completeness
fied
(1) Technical Feasibility
C. Content Validity Studies
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-0.1114R000300050001-8
 RULES AND REGULATIONS
r ., Approved}For ReleaAl TgppIN8/1~ ,dCIA-RDP89-01114R0(gPAPRQkgpp1-8 _f nn .
(2) Problem and Setting
(3) Job Analysis-Content of the Job
(4) Selection Procedure and Its Content
(5) Relationship Between Selection Pro-
cedure 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
Study
(2) Problem and Setting
(3) Construct Definition
(4) Job Analysis
(6) Selection Procedure lh) #.VIU IUC I-- --.. . w=w=...
(7) Relationship to Job Performance Studies
(8) Alternative Procedures Investigated (3) Evidence From Construct Validity
(9) Uses and Applications Studies
(10) Accuracy and Completeness F. Evidence of Validity From Cooperative
(11) Source Data Studies
(12) Contact Person G. Selection for Higher Level Jobs
E. Evidence of Validity From Other Stud-
ies
(1) Evidence From Criterion-Related Va-
lidity Studies
(a) Job Information
(b) Relevance of Criteria
(c) Other Variables
(d) Use of the Selection Procedure
DEFINITIONS
1607.16 Definitions
APPENDIX
1607.17 Policy Statement on Affirmative
Action (see section 1313)
1607.18 Citations
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 206/'~~GRI 1114R000300050001-8
[6570-061
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Title 41-Public Contracts and
Property Management
CHAPTER 60-OFFICE OF FEDERAL.
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PRO-
GRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
PART 60-3-UNIFORM GUIDELINES
ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCE-
DURES (1978)
The Uniform Guidelines on Employ-
ee Selection Procedures which are
printed at the beginning of this part
IV of today's FEDERAL REGISTER are
adopted by the Department of Labor,
in conjunction with the Civil Service
Commission, Department of Justice,
and the Equal Employment Opportu-
nity Commission to establish a uni-
form Federal position in the area of
prohibiting discrimination in employ-
ment practices on grounds of race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Cross reference documents are pub-
lished at 5 CFR 300.103(c) (Civil Serv-
ice Commission), 28 CFR 50.14 (De-
partment of Justice) and 29 CFR 1607
(Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission), elsewhere in this issue
of the FEDERAL REGISTER.
By virtue of the authority of sec-
tions 201, 202, 203, 203(a), 205, 206(a),
301, 303(b), and 403(b) of Executive
Order 11246, as amended, 30 FR 12319;
32 FR 14303; section 60-1.2 of part 60-
1 of 41 CFR chapter 60, and section
715 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2000e-14), part 60-
3 of chapter 60 of title 41 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is revised by
rescinding the Guidelines on Employ-
ee Selection Procedures (see 41 FR
51744, November 23, 1976) and adopt-
ing the Uniform Guidelines on Em-
ployee Selection Procedures (1978) as
a new part 60-3.
Effective date: September 25, 1978.
RAY MARSHALL,
Secretary of Labor.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
60-3.1 Statement of Purpose
A. Need for Uniformity-Issuing Agencies
B. Purpose of Guidelines
C. Relation to Prior Guidelines
60-3.2 Scope
A. Application of Guidelines
B. Employment Decisions
C. Selection Procedures
D. Limitations
E. Indian Preference Not Affected
60-3.3 Discrimination Defined: Relation-
ship Between Use of Selection Proce-
dures and Discrimination
A. Procedure Having Adverse Impact Con-
stitutes Discrimination Unless Justi-
fied
B. Consideration of Suitable Alternative
Selection Procedures
60-3.4 Information on Impact
A. Records Concerning Impact
B. Applicable Race, Sex, and Ethnic
Groups for Recordkeeping
C. Evaluation of Selection Rates. The
"Bottom Line"
D. Adverse Impact and the "Four-Fifths
Rule"
E. Consideration of User's Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Posture
60-3.5 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. Methodof Use of Selection Procedures
H. Cutoff Scores
I. Use of Selection Procedures for Higher
Level Jobs
J. Interim Use of Selection Procedures
K. Review of Validity Studies for Curren-
cy
60-3.6 Use of Selection Procedures Which
Have Not Been Validated
A. Use of Alternate Selection Procedures
To Eliminate Adverse Impact
B. Where Validity Studies Cannot or Need
Not Be Performed
(1) Where Informal or Unscored Proce-
dures Are Used
(2) Where Formal and Scored Proce-
dures Are Used
60-3.7 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) Validity Evidence
(2) Job Similarity
(3) Fairness Evidence
C. Validity Evidence From Multiunit
Study
D. Other Significant Variables
60-3.8 Cooperative Studies
A. Encouragement of Cooperative Studies
B. Standards for Use of Cooperative Stud-
ies
60-3.9 No Assumption of Validity
A. Unacceptable Substitutes for Evidence
of Validity
B. Encouragement of Professional Super-
vision
60-3.10 Employment Agencies and Employ-
ment Services
A. Where Selection Procedures Are De-
vised by Agency
B. Where Selection Procedures Are De-
vised Elsewhere
60-3.11 Disparate Treatment
60-3.12 Retesting of Applicants
60-3.13 Affirmative Action
A. Affirmative Action Obligations
B. Encouragement of Voluntary Affirma-
tive Action Programs
TECHNICAL STANDARDS
60-3.14 Technical Standards for Validity
Studies
A. Validity Studies Should be Based on
Review of Information About the Job
B. Technical Standards for Criterion-Re-
Iated Validity Studies
(1) Technical Feasibility
(2) Analysis of the Job
(3) Criterion Measures
(4) Representativeness of the Sample
(5) Statistical Relationships
(6) Operational Use of Selection Proce-
dures on
(7) Over-Statement of Validity Findings
(8) Fairness
(a) Unfairness Defined
(b) Investigation of Fairness
(c) General Considerations in Fairness
Investigations
(d) When Unfairness Is Shown
(e) Technical Feasibility of Fairness
Studies
(f) Continued Use of Selection Proce-
dures When Fairness Studies not Feasi-
ble
C. Technical Standards for Content Valid-
ity Studies
(1) Appropriateness of Content Validity
Studies
(2) Job Analysis for Content Validity
(3) Development of Selection Procedure
(4) Standards for Demonstrating Con-
tent Validity
(5) Reliability
(6) Prior Training or Experience
(7) Training Success
(8) Operational Use
(9) Ranking Based on Content Validity
Studies o,
D. Technical Standards for Construct Va-
lidity Studies
(1) Appropriateness of Construct Valid-
ity Studies
(2) Job Analysis for Construct Validity an
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
Behaviors
DOCUMENTATION OF IMPACT AND VALIDITY
EVIDENCE
60-3.15 Documentation of Impact and Va-
lidity 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
Eliminated in the Total Selection Proc-
ess
(c) When Data Insufficient to Deter-
mine 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 Infor-
mation
(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
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 166-FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1978
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved
(13) Accuracy and Completeness
C Content Validity Studies
RULES AND REGULATIONS 38315
For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
(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 Stud-
ies
(1) Evidence From Criterion-Related Va-
lidity 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 Frorrl Construct Validity
Studies
F. Evidence of Validity From Cooperative
Studies
0. Selection for Higher Level Jobs
H. Interim Use of Selection Procedures
(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 Pro-
cedure 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
DEFINITIONS
60-3.16 Definitions
APPENDIX
60-3.17 Policy Statement on Affirmative
Action (see section 13B)
60-3.18 Citations
[FR Doe. 78-23997 Filed 8-22-78; 4:48 pm]
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 if any changes have been made in
certain titles of the CODE OF
FEDERAL REGULATIONS without
reading the Federal Register every
day? If so, you may wish to subscribe
to the LSA (List of CFR
Sections Affected) the "Federal
Register Index," or both.
LSA (List of CFR Sections Affected)
$10.00
per year
The LSA (List of CFR Sections
Affected) is designed to lead users of
the Code of Federal Regulations to
amendatory actions published in the
Federal Register, and is issued
monthly in cumulative form. Entries
indicate the nature of the changes.
Federal Register Index $8.00
per year
Indexes covering the
contents of the daily Federal Register are
issued monthly, quarterly, and annually.
Entries are carried primarily under the
names of the issuing agencies. Significant
subjects are carried as cross-references.
A finding aid is included in each publication which lists
Federal Register page numbers with the date of publication
in the Federal Register.
Note to FR Subscribers: FR Indexes and the
LSA (Lis( of CFR Sections Affected) will continue
to be mailed free of charge to regular FR subscribers.
Mail order form to:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
LSA (LIST OF CFR SECTIONS AFFECTED) ($10.00 a year domestic; $12.50
___________ FEDERAL REGISTER INDEX ($8.00 a year domestic: $10.00 foreign)
Name
Street Address
City State
Make check payable to the Superintendent of Documents
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved Release 2001/08/14: CIA- 1 iffldf 1yoo 9
A,'
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT'
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY
ADOPTION OF QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS TO CLARIFY AND
PROVIDE A COMMON
INTERPRETATION OF THE
UNIFORM GUIDELINES ON
EMPLOYEE SELECTION
PROCEDURES
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 11996
16570--06-M]
Approved For Release M 90 M -WR 4-01114R000300050001-8
Title 29-Labor
CHAPTER XIV-EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
PART 1607-UNIFORM GUIDELINES
ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCE-
DURES (1978)
Title 5-Administrative Personnel
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
PART 300-EMPLOYMENT
(GENERAL)
CHAPTER 1-DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
Title 31-Money and Finance:
Treasury
CHAPTER I-MONETARY OFFICES:
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
PART 51-FISCAL ASSISTANCE TO
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Title 41-Public Contracts and
Property Management
CHAPTER 60-OFFICE OF FEDERAL
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PRO-
GRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
PART 60-3-UNIFORM GUIDELINES
ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCE-
DURES (1978)
Adoption of Questions and Answers
To Clarify and Provide a Common
Interpretation of the Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures
AGENCIES: Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission, Office of Per-
sonnel Management, Department of
Justice, Department of Labor and De-
partment of Treasury.
ACTION: Adoption of questions and
answers designed to clarify and pro-
vide a common interpretation of the
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Se-
lection Procedures.
SUMMARY: The Uniform Guidelines
on Employee Selection Procedures
were issued by the five Federal agen-
cies having primary responsibility for
the enforcement of Federal equal em-
ployment opportunity laws, to estab-
lish a uniform Federal government po-
sition. See 43 FR 38290, et seq. (Aug.
25, 1978) and 43 FR 40223 (Sept. 11,
1978). They became effective on Sep-
tember 25, 1978, The issuing agencies
recognize the need for a common in-
terpretation of the Uniform Guide-
lines, as well as the desirability of pro-
viding additional guidance to employ-
ers and other users, psychologists, and
investigators, compliance officers and
other Federal enforcement personnel.
These Questions and Answers are in-
tended to address that need and to
provide such guidance.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 1979.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
A. Diane Graham, Assistant Direc-
tor, Affirmative Employment Pro-
grams, Office of Personnel Manage-
ment, 1900 E Street, NW., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20415, 202/632-4420.
James Hellings, Special Assistant to
the Assistant Director, Intergovern-
menta.1 Personnel Programs, Office
of Personnel Management. 1900 E
Street, NW., Washington, D.C.
20415, 202/632-6248.
Kenneth A. Millard, Chief, State
and Local Section, Personnel Re-
search and Development Center,
Office of Personnel Management,
1900 E St., NW., Washington, D.C.
20415, 202-632-6238.
Peter C. Robertson, Director, Office
of Policy Implementation, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion, 2401 E Street, NW., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20506, 202/634-7060.
David L. Rose, Chief. Employment
Section, Civil Rights Division, De-
partment of Justice, 10th Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20530, 202/633-3831.
Donald J. Schwartz, Psychologist,
Office of Federal Contract Compli-
ance Programs, Room C-3324, De-
partment of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C.
20210, 202/523--9426.
Herman Schwartz, Chief Counsel,
Office of Revenue Sharing, Depart-
ment of the Treasury, 2401 E Street,
NW., Washington, D.C. 20220. 202/
634-5182.
James O. Taylor, Jr., Research Psy-
chologist, Office of Systemic Pro-
grams, Equal Employment Opportu-
nity Commission, 2401 E St., NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20506, 202/254-
3036.
INTRODUCTION
The problems addressed by the Uni-
form Guidelines on Employee Selec-
tion Procedures (43 FR 38290 et seq.,
August 25, 1978) are numerous and Im-
portant, and some of them are com-
plex. 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 em-
ployers and other users, but also to
psychologists and others who are
called upon to conduct validity studies,
and to investigators, compliance offi-
have enforcement responsibilities.
The Federal agencies which issued
the Uniform Guidelines-the Depart-
ments of Justice and Labor, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commis
sion, the Civil Service Commission
(which has been succeeded in relevant
part by the Office of Personnel,Man-
Sharing, Treasury Department-recog-
nize that the goal of a uniform posi-
tion on these issues can best be
achieved through a common interpre-
tation of the same guidelines. The fol-
lowing Questions and Answers are
part of such a common interpretation.
The material 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 ex-
tensive comments received on the var-
ious sets of proposed guidelines prior
to their adoption. Terms are used in
the questions and answers as they are
defined in the Uniform Guidelines.
The agencies recognize that addi-
tional questions may be appropriate
for similar treatment at a later date,
and contemplate working together to
provide additional guidance in inter-
preting the Uniform Guidelines. Users
and other interested persons are invit-
ed to submit additional 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, Depart-
ment of Justice.
WELDEN RouaEAu.
Director, Office of Federal Con-
tract Compliance, Department
of Labor.
KENT A. PETERSON.
Acting Deputy Director,
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
1. Q. What is the purpose of the
Guidelines?
A. The guidelines are designed to aid
in the achievement of our nation's
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 0M R t- -01114R000300050001-8 11997
so goal of equal employment opportunity
without discrimination on the grounds
of race, color, sex, religion or national
origin. The Federal agencies have
00 adopted the Guidelines to provide a
uniform set of principles governing
use' of employee selection procedures
which is consistent with applicable
legal standards and validation stand-
s* ards generally accepted by the psycho-
logical profession and which the Gov-
ernment will apply in the discharge of
its responsibilities.
2. Q. What is the basic principle of
Iss the Guidelines?
A. A selection process which has an
adverse impact on the employment op-
portunities of members of a race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin
group (referred to as "race, sex, and
ethnic group," as defined in Section
16P) and thus disproportionately
screens them out is unlawfully dis-
t11i criminatory unless the process or its
component procedures have been vali-
dated in accord with the Guidelines,
or the user otherwise justifies them in
accord with Federal law. See Sections
'wlt 3'and 6.' This principle was adopted by
the Supreme Court unanimously in
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S.
424, and was ratified and endorsed by
the Congress when it passed the Equal
Employment Opportunity Act of 1972,
which amended Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
3. Q. Who is covered by the Guide-
go lines?
A. The Guidelines apply to private
and public employers, labor organiza-
tions, employment agencies, appren-
ticeship committees, licensing and cer-
+011 tification boards (see Question 7), and
contractors or subcontractors, who are
covered by one or more of the follow-
ing provisions of Federal equal em-
ployment opportunity law: Title VII of
401
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amend-
ed by the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Act of 1972 (hereinafter Title
VII); Executive Order 11246, as
wp.amexded by Executive Orders 11375
and 12086 (hereinafter Executive
Order 11246); the State and Local
Fiscal Assistance. Act of 1972, as
amended; Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended;
and the Intergovernmental Personnel
Act of 1970, as amended. Thus, under
Title VII, the Guidelines apply to the
Federal Government with regard to
'Section references throughout these
questions and answers are to the sections of
the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selec-
tion Procedures (herein referred to as
"Guidelines") that were published by the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion, the Civil Service Commission, the De-
partment of Labor, and the Department of
Justice on Aug. 25, 1978, 43 FR 38290. The
OE Uniform Guidelines were adopted by the
Office of Revenue Sharing of the Depart-
ment of Treasury on September 11, 1978. 43
FR 40223.
Federal employment. Through Title
VII they apply to most private em-
ployers. who have 15 or more employ-
ees for 20 weeks or more a calendar
year, and to most employment agen-
cies, labor orgainzations and appren-
ticeship committees. They apply to
state and local governments which
employ 15 or more employees, or
which receive revenue sharing funds,
or which receive funds from the Law
Enforcement Assistance Adtninistra-
tion to impose and strengthen law en-
forcement and criminal justice, or
which receive grants or other federal
assistance under a program which re-
quires maintenance of personnel
standards on a merit basis. They apply
through Executive Order 11246 to con-
tractors and subcontractors of the
Federal Government and to contrac-
tors and subcontractors under federal-
ly-assisted construction contracts.
4. Q. Are college placement officers
and similar organizations considered
to be users subject to the Guidelines?
A. Placement offices may or may not
be subject to the Guidelines depend-
ing on what services they offer. If a
placement office uses a selection pro-
cedure as a basis for any employment
decision, it is covered tinder the defini-
tion of "user". Section 16. For exam-
ple, if a placement office selects some
students for referral to an employer
but rejects others, it Is covered. How-
ever, if the placement office refers all
interested students to an employer, It
is not covered, even though it may
offer office space and provision for in-
forming the students of job openings.
The Guidelines are intended to cover
all users of employee selection proce-
dures, including employment agencies,
who are subject to Federal equal em-
ployment 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 appli-
cation forms, work samples, physical
requirements, and evaluations of per-
formance. 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. See-
tion 2B. Employee selection proce-
dures include job requirements (physi-
cal, education, experience), and evalu-
ation of applicants or candidates on
the basis of application forms, inter-
views, performance tests, paper and
pencil tests, performance in training
programs or probationary periods, and
any other procedures used to make an
employment decision whether admin-
istered by the employer or by an em?
ployment 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
functions 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 employ-
ment 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 be-
tween Federal equal employment op-
portunity law, embodied in these
Guidelines, and State and Local gov-
ernment merit system laws or regula-
tions requiring rank: ordering of candi-
dates and selection from a limited
number of the top candidates?
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 as-
sumption 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 validation
prior to ranking. Accordingly, there i8
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, Cl. 2), however,
Federal law or valid regulation over-
rides any contrary provision of state
or local law. Thus, if there is any con-
flict, Federal equal opportunity law
prevails. For example, in Rosenfeld v.
So. Pacific Co., 444 F. 2d 1219 (9th
Cir., 1971), the court held invalid state
protective laws which prohibited the
employment of women in jobs entail-
ing long hours or heavy labor, because
the state laws were in conflict with
Title VII. Where a State or local offi-
cial believes that there is a possible
conflict, the official may wish to con-
sult with the State Attorney General,
County or City attorney, or other
legal official to determine how to
comply with the law.
II. ADVERSE IMPACT, THE BOTTOM LINE
AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
9. Q. Do the Guidelines require that
only validated selection procedures be
used?
A. No. Although validation of selec-
tion procedures is desirable in person-
nel management, the Uniform Guide-
lines require users to produce, evidence
of validity only when the selection
procedure adversely affects the oppor-
tunities of a race, sex, or ethnic group
err '
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 43--FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1919
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release R4RIA--01114R000300050001-8
for hire, transfer, promotion, reten-
tion or other employment decision.. If
it there is no adverse impact, there is no
validation requirement under the
Guidelines. Sections 1B and 3A. See
also, Section 6A.
10. Q. What is adverse impact?
A. Under the Guidelines adverse
impact is a substantially different rate
of selection in hiring, promotion or
other employment decision which
works to the disadvantage of members
of a race, sex or ethnic group. Sections
4D and 16B. See Questions 11 and 12.
11. Q. What is a substantially differ-
ent rate of selection?
A. The agencies have adopted a rule
of thumb under which they will gener-
ally consider a selection rate for any
race, sex, or ethnic group which is less
than four-fifths (4/5ths) or eighty per-
cent (80%) of the selection rate for the
group with the highest selection rate
as a substantially different rate of se-
lection. See Section 4D. This "4/5ths"
or "80%" rule of thumb is not intend-
ed as a legal definition, but is a practi-
cal means of keeping the attention of
the enforcement agencies on serious
discrepancies in rates of hiring, pro-
motion and other selection decisions.
For example, if the hiring rate for
whites other than Hispanics is 60%,
for American Indians 45%, for Hispan-
ics- 48%, and for Blacks 51%, and each
of these groups constitutes more than
2% of the labor force in the relevant
labor area (see Question 16), a com-
parison should be made of the selec-
tion rate for each group with that of
the highest group (whites). These
comparisons show the following
impact ratios: American Indians 45/60
or 75%; Hispanics 48/60 or 80%; and
Blacks 51/60 or 85%. Applying the 4/
5ths or 80% rule of thumb, on the
basis of the above information alone,
adverse impact is indicated for Ameri-
can Indians but not for Hispanics or
Blacks.
12. Q. How is adverse impact deter-
mined?
A. Adverse impact is determined by a
four step process.
(1) calculate the rate of selection for
each group (divide the number of per-
sons selected from a group by the
number of applicants from that
group).
(2) observe which group ? has the
highest selection rate.
(3) calculate the impact ratios, by
comparing the selection rate for each
group with that of the highest group
(divide the selection rate for a group
by the selection rate for the highest-
group).
(4) observe whether the selection
rate for any group is substantially less
(i.e., usually less than 4/5ths or 80%)
than the selection rate for the highest
group. If it is, adverse impact is indi-
tion 4D.
For example:
Selection
Applicants
Hires
rate Percent
hired
00 white .............................
48
48/80 or 60%u
40 Black ..............................
12
12/40 or 30%
A comparison of the black selection
rate (30%) with the white selection
rate (60%) shows that the black rate is
30/60, or one-half (or 50%) of the
white rate. Since the one-half (50%) is
less than 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 ad-
verse impact of the individual selec-
tion 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 selection process, in most cir-
cumstances there is no obligation
under the Guidelines to investigate ad-
verse impact for the components, or to
validate the selection procedures used
for that job. Section 4C. But see Ques-
tion 25.
14. Q. The Guidelines designate the
"total selection process" as the initial
basis for determining the impact of se-
lection procedures. What is meant by
the "total selection process"?
A. The "total selection process"
refers to the combined effect of all se-
lection procedures leading to the final
employment decision such as hiring or
promoting. For example, appraisal of
candidates for administrative assistant
positions in an organization might in-
clude 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. Additional-
ly, where there is more than one route
to the particular kind of employment
decision, the total selection process en-
compasses the combined results of all
routes. For example, an employer may
select some applicants for a particular
kind of job through appropriate writ-
ten 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 se-
lection 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
recruitment and selection procedures.
The concept of an applicant is that of
a person who has indicated an interest
in being considered for hiring, promo-
tion, or other employment opportuni-
ties. 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 in-
cluded to cover those situations where
the initial step by the user involves
consideration of current employees for
promotion, or training, or other em-
ployment opportunities, without invit-
which persons are identified as candi-
dates is itself a selection 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. Employ-
which discourage disproportionately
applicants of a race, sex or ethnic
group may, however, require justifica-
tion. Records should be kept for per-
sons who were applicants or candi-
dates at any stage of the process.
16. Q. Should adverse impact deter-
minations be made for all groups re-
gardless of their size?
A. No. Section 15A(2) calls for
annual adverse impact determinations
to be made for each group which con-
stitutes either 2% or more of the total
labor force in the relevant labor area,
or 2% or more of the applicable work-
force. Thus, impact determinations
should be made for any employment
decision for each group which consti-
tutes 2% or more of the labor force in
the relevant labor area. For hiring,
such determination should also be
made for groups which constitute
for promotions, determinations should
also be made for those groups which
constitute at least 2% of the user's
workforce. There are record keeping
obligations for all groups, even those
which are less than 2%. See Question
86.
17. Q. In determining adverse
impact, do you compare the selection
rates for males and females, and
blacks and whites, or do you compare
selection rates for white males, white
females, black males and black fe-
males?
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 AND REGULATIONS
Approved For Release 0588/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
A. The selection rates for males and
females are compared, and the - selec-
tion rates for the race and ethnic
groups are compared with the selec-
tion rate of the race or ethnic group
with the highest selection rate. Neu-
;, tral and objective selection procedures
free of. adverse impact against any
race, sex or ethnic group are unlikely
to have an impact against a subgroup.
Thus there is no obligation to make
comparisons for subgroups (e.g., white
male, white female, black male, black
female). However, there are obliga-
tions to keep records (see Question
87), and any apparent exclusion of a
subgroup may suggest the presence of
discrimination.
18. Q. Is it usually necessary to cal-
culate the statistical significance of
differences in selection rates when in-
vestigating the existence of adverse
impact?
A. No. Adverse impact is normally
indicated when one selection rate is
less than 80% of the other. The feder-
al enforcement agencies normally will
use only the 80% ('laths) rule of
thumb, except where large numbers of
selections are made. See Questions 20
and 22.
19. Q. Does the %ths rule of thumb
mean that the Guidelines will tolerate
up to 20% discrimination?
A. No. The 4/5ths rule of thumb
speaks only to the question of adverse
Impact, and is not intended to resolve
the ultimate question of unlawful dis-
,ecrimination. Regardless of the amount
of difference in selection rates, unlaw-
ful discrimination may be present, and
may be demonstrated through appro-
priate evidence. The %ths rule merely
establishes a numerical basis for draw-
ing an initial inference and for requir-
ing additional information.
. With respect to adverse impact, the
Guidelines expressly state (section 4D)
that differences in selection rates of
less than 20% may still amount to ad-
verse impact where the differences are
significant in both statistical and prac-
tical terms. See Question 20. In the ab-
sence of differences which are large
enough to meet the */aths rule of
thumb or a test of statistical signifi-
cance, there is no reason to assume
that the differences are reliable, or
that they are based upon anything
other than chance.
20. Q. Why is the %ths rule called a
rule of thumb?
A. Because it Is not intended to be
controlling in all circumstances. If, for
the sake of illustration, we assume
that nationwide statistics show that
use of an arrest record would disquali-
fy 10% of all Hispanic persons but
only 4% of all whites other than His-
panic (hereafter non-Hispanic), the se-
lection rate for that selection proce-
dure is 90% for Hispanics and 98% for
non-Hispanics. Therefore, the '/s rule
of thumb would not indicate the pres-
ence of adverse, impact (90% is ap-
proximately 94% of 98%). But in this
example, the information is based
upon nationwide statistics, and the
sample is large enough to yield statis-
tically significant results, and the dif-
ference (Hispanics are 21/2 times as
likely to be disqualified as non-Hispan-
ics) is large enough to be practically
significant. Thus, in this example the
enforcement agencies would consider a
disqualification based on an arrest
record alone as having an adverse
impact. Likewise, in Gregory v. Litton
Industries, 472 F. 2d 631 (9th Cir.,
1972), the court held that the employ-
er violated Title VII by disqualifying
persons from employment solely on
the basis of an arrest record, where
that disqualification had an adverse
impact on blacks and was not shown to
be justified by business necessity.
On the other hand, a difference of
more than 20% in rates of selection
may not provide a basis for finding ad-
verse impact if the number of persons
selected is very small. For example, if
the employer selected three males and
one female from an applicant pool of
20 males and 10 females, the 4/%ths rule
would indicate adverse impact (selec-
tion rate for women is 10%; for men
15%; '%e or 66%% is less than 80%),
yet the number of selections is too
small to warrant a determination of
adverse impact. In these circum-
stances, the enforcement agency
would not require validity evidence in
the absence of additional information
(such as selection rates for a longer
period of time) indicating adverse
impact. For recordkeeping require-
ments, see Section 15A(2)(c) and Ques-
tions 84 and 85.
21. Q. Is evidence of adverse impact
sufficient to warrant a validity study
or an enforcement action where the
numbers involved are so small that it
is more likely than not that the differ-
ence could have occurred by chance?
For example:
Applicants
Not hired
aired
Selection
rate percent
hired
so white .....
20 Black ......
H
17
16
3
20
15
White Selection Rate ......................... ................. 20
Black Selection Rate .......................................... 15
15 divided by 20=75%n (which is less than 80%).
A. No. If the numbers of persons and
the difference in selection rates are so
small that it is likely that the differ-
ence could have occurred by chance,
the Federal agencies will not assume
the existence of adverse impact, in the
absence of other evidence. In this ex-
ample, the difference in selection rates
is too small, given the small number of
black applicants, to constitute adverse
impact in the absence of other infor-
mation (see Section 4D). If only one
more black had been hired instead of a
white the selection rate for blacks
(20%) would be higher than that for
whites (18.7%). Generally, it is Inap-
propriate to require validity evidence
or to take enforcement action where
the number of persons and the differ-
ence in selection rates are. so small
that the selection of one different
person for one job would shift the
result from adverse impact against ones
group to a situation in which that
group has a higher selection rate than
the other group.
On the other hand, if a lower selec-
tion rate continued over a period of
time, so as to constitute a pattern,
then the lower selection rate would
constitute adverse impact, warranting
the need for validity evidence.
22. Q. Is it ever necessary to calcu-
late the statistical significance of dif-
ferences in selection rates to deter-
mine whether adverse impact exists?
A. Yes. Where large numbers of se-
lections are made, relatively small dif-
ferences in selection rates may never-
theless constitute adverse impact if
they are both statistically and practi-
cally significant. See Section 4D and
Question 20. For that 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 appropriate
to calculate the statistical significance
of the difference in selection rates.
23. Q. When the 'Ysth rule of thumb
shows adverse impact, is there adverse
impact under the Guidelines?
A. There usually is adverse impact,
except where the number of persons
selected and the difference in selection
rates are very small. See Section 4D
and Questions 20 and 21.
24. Q. Why do the Guidelines rely
primarily upon the %ths rule of
thumb, rather than tests of statistical
significance? -
A. Where the sample of persons se-
lected is not large, even a large real
difference between groups is likely not
to be confirmed by a test of statistical
significance (at the usual .05 level of
significance). For this reason, the
Guidelines do not rely primarily upon
a test of statistical significance, but
use the %/rths rule of thumb as a prac-
tical and easy-to-administer measure
of whether differences in selection
rates are substantial, Many decisions
in day-to-day life are made without re-
liance upon a test of statistical signifi-
eance.
25. Q. Are there any circumstances
in which the employer should evaluate
components of a selection process,
even though the overall selection proc-
ess results in no adverse impact?
A. Yes, there axe such circum-
stances: (1) Where the selection proce-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release1M/oM'8-01114R000300050001-8
dure is a significant factor in the con-
tinuation of patterns of assignments
of Incumbent employees caused by
prior discriminatory employment prac-
tices. Assume, for example, an employ-
er who traditionally hired blacks as
employees for the "laborer" depart-
ment in a manufacturing plant, and
traditionally hired only whites as
swilled craftsmen. Assume further that
the employer in 1962 began to use a
written examination not supported by
a validity study to screen incumbent
remployees who sought to enter the ap-
prenticeship program for skilled craft
jobs. The employer stopped making
racial assignments in 1972. Assume
further that for the last four years,
there have been special recruitment
efforts aimed at recent black high
school graduates and that the selec-
tion process, which includes the writ-
ten examination, has resulted in the
selection of black applicants for ap-
prenticeship in approximately the
same rates as white applicants.
In those circumstances, if the writ-
ten examination had an adverse
impact, its use would tend to keep in-
cumbent black employees in the labor-
er department, and deny them entry
to apprenticeship programs. For that
reason, the enforcement agencies
would expect the user to evaluate the
impact of the written examination,
and to have validity evidence for the
use of the written examination if it
has an adverse impact.
(2) Where the weight of court deci-
sions or administrative interpretations
holds that a specific selection proce-
dure is not job related in similar cir-
cumstances.
For example, courts have held that
because an arrest is not a determina-
tion of guilt, an applicant's arrest
record by itself does not indicate in-
ability to perform a job consistent
with the trustworthy and efficient op-
eration of a. business. Yet a no arrest
record requirement has a nationwide
adverse Impact on some minority
groups. Thus, an employer who re-
fuses to hire applicants solely on the
basis of an arrest record is on notice
that. this policy may be found to be
discriminatory. Gregory v. Litton In-
dustries, 472 F. 2d 631 (9th Cir., 1972)
(excluding persons from employment
solely on the basis of arrests, which
has an adverse impact, held to violate
Title VII). Similarly,, a minimum
height requirement disproportionately
disqualifies women and some national
origin groups, and has been held not
to be job related in a number of cases.
For example, in Dothard v. Rawlinson,
433 U.S. 321 (1977), the Court held
that height and weight requirements
not shown to be job related were viola-
tive of Title VII. Thus an employer
using a minimum height requirement
should have evidence of its validity.
(3) In addition, there may be other
circumstances in which an enforce-
ment agency may decide to request an
employer to evaluate components of a
selection process. but such circum-
stances would clearly be unusual. Any
such decision will be made only at a
high level in the agency. Investigators
and compliance officers are not au-
thorized to make this decision.
28. Q. Does the bottom line concept
of Section 4C apply to the administra-
tive processing of charges of discrimi-
nation filed with an issuing agency, al-
leging that a specific selection proce-
dure is discriminatory?
A. No. The bottom line concept ap-
plies only to enforcement actions as
defined in Section 16 of the Guide-
lines. Enforcement actions include
only court enforcement actions and
other similar. proceedings as defined in
Section 161. The EEOC administrative
processsing of charges of discrimina-
tion (investigation, finding of reason-
able cause/no cause, and conciliation)
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 enforce-
ment resources to the most serious of-
fenders of equal employment opportu-
nity laws. Since the concept is not a
rule of law, it does not affect the dis-
charge by the EEOC of Its statutory
responsibilities to Investigate charges
of discrimination, render an adminis-
trative finding on its investigation, and
engage in voluntary conciliation ef-
forts. Similarly, with respect to the
other issuing agencies, the bottom line
concept applies not to the processing
of individual charges, but to the initi-
ation 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 require 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 pro-
portions 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 tmpact, and
which are part of a selection process
which has an adverse impact. If the
test Is administered 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 discrim-
ination or adverse impact in the as-
signment of individuals to, or in the
selection of persons for, particular
be kept and determinations of adverse
impact to be made of the overall selec-
tion 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.
. 26. Q. The Uniform Guidelines apply
to the requirements of Federal law
prohibiting employment practices
which discriminate on the grounds of
race, color, religion, sex or national
origin. However, records are required
to be kept only by sex and by specified
race and ethnic groups. How can ad-
verse ? impact be determined for reli-
gious groups and for national origin
groups other than those specified in
Section 4B of the Guidelines?
A. The groups for which records are
required to be maintained are the
groups for which there is extensive
evidence of continuing discriminatory
practices. This limitation is designed
in part to minimize the burden on em-
ployers for recordkeeping which may
not be needed.
For groups for which records are not
required, the person(s) complaining
may obtain information from the em-
ployer or others (voluntarily or
through legal process) to show that
adverse impact has taken place. When
that has been done, the various provi-
sions of the Uniform Guidelines are
fully applicable.
Whether or not there is adverse
impact, Federal equal employment op-
portunity law prohibits any deliberate
discrimination or disparate treatment
on grounds of religion or national
origin, as well as on grounds of sex,
color, or race.
Whenever "ethnic" is used in the
Guidelines or in these Questions and
Answers, it is intended to include na-
tional origin and religion, as set forth
In the statutes, executive orders, and
regulations prohibiting discrimination.
See Section 16P.
29. Q. What is the relationship be-
tween affirmative action and the re-
quirements of the Uniform Guide-
lines?
A. The two subjects are different, al-
though related. Compliance with the
Guidelines does not relieve users of
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved
For Release 25 fM8 : 9MNV501114R000300050001-8
selections are to be made, the employ-
er may take reasonable steps to assure
that members of the excluded or un-
derutilized race, sex, or ethnic group
are included in the pool (Section 17(3)
(e)).
Similarly, the employer may be race,
sex or ethnic-conscious in determining
what changes should be implemented
if the objectives of the programs are
not being met (Section 17(3) (g)).
Even apart from affirmative action
programs a user may be race, sex or
ethnic-conscious in taking appropriate
and lawful measures to eliminate ad-
verse impact from selection procedures
(Section 6A).
31. Q. Section 6A authorizes the use
of alternative selection procedures to
eliminate adverse impact, but does not
appear to address the issue of validity.
Thus, the use of alternative selection
procedures without adverse impact
seemjs to be presented as an option in
lieu of validation. Is that its intent?
A. Yes. Under Federal equal employ-
ment opportunity law the use of any
selection procedure which has an ad-
verse impact on any race, sex or ethnic
group is discriminatory unless the pro-
cedure has been properly validated, or
the use of the procedure is otherwise
justified under Federal law. Griggs v.
Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971);
Section 3A. If a selection procedure
has an adverse impact, therefore, Fed-
eral equal employment opportunity
law authorizes 'the user to choose
lawful alternative procedures which
eliminate the adverse impact rather
than demonstrating the validity of the
original selection procedure.
Many users, while wishing to vali-
date all of their selection procedures,
are not able to conduct the validity
studies immediately. Such users have
the option of choosing alternative
techniques which eliminate adverse
impact, with a view to providing a
basis for determining subsequently
which selection procedures are valid
and have as little adverse impact as
possible.
Apart from Federal equal employ-
ment opportunity law, employers have
economic incentives to use properly
validated selection procedures. Noth-
ing in Section 6A should be interpret-
ed as discouraging the use of properly
validated selection procedures; but
Federal equal employment opportuni-
ty law does not require validity studies
to be conducted unless there is adverse
impact. See Section 2C.
III. GENERAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING
VALIDITY AND THE USE OF SELECTION
PROCEDURES
32. Q. What is "validation" accord-
ing to the Uniform Guidelines?
A. Validation is the demonstration
of the job relatedness of a selection
procedure. The Uniform Guidelines
recognize the same three validity
strategies recognized by the American
Psychological Association:
(1) Criterion-related validity-a sta-
tistical demonstration of a relation-
ship between scores on a selection pro-
cedure and job performance of a
sample of workers..
(2) Content validity-a demonstra-
tion that the content of a selection
procedure is representative of impor-
tant aspects of performance on the
job.
(3) Construct validity-a demonstra-
tion that (a) a selection procedure
measures a construct (something be-
lieved to be an underlying human trait
or characteristic, such as honesty) and
(b) the construct is important for suc-
cessful job performance.
33. Q. What is the typical process by
which validity studies are reviewed by
an enforcement agency?
A. The validity study is normally re-
quested by an enforcement officer
during the course of a review. The of-
ficer will first determine whether the
user's data show that the overall selec-
tion 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 ad-
verse impact. See Sections 15B, C, and
D. This validity evidence will be re-
ferred 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
before a review, so as to assure its va-
lidity?
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 be reviewed without
evidence of how the selection proce-
dure is used and what impact its use
has on various race, sex, and ethnic
groups.
35. Q. May reports of validity pre-
pared by publishers of commercial
tests and printed in test manuals or
other literature be helpful in meeting
the Guidelines?
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 with-
out 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 proce-
dure has an adverse impact and is part
of a selection process that has an ad-
verse impact.
their affirmative action obligations, in-
cluding those of Federal contractors
and subcontractors under Executive
Order 11246. Section 13.
The Guidelines encourage the devel-
opment and effective implementation
of affirmative action plans or pro-
grams in two ways. First, in determin-
ing whether to institute action against
a user on the basis of a selection pro-
cedure which has adverse impact and
which has not been validatV, the en-
forcement agency will take into ac-
count the general equal employment
opportunity posture of the user with
respect to the job classifications for
which the procedure is used and the
progress which has been made in car-
rying out any affirmative action pro-
gram. Section 4E. If the user has dem-
onstrated over a substantial period of
time that it is in fact appropriately
utilizing in the job or group of jobs in
question the available race, sex or
ethnic groups in the relevant labor
force, the enforcement agency will
generally exercise its discretion by not
initiating enforcement proceedings
based on adverse impact in relation to
the applicant flow. Second, nothing in
the Guidelines is intended to preclude
the use of selection procedures, con-
sistent with Federal law, which assist
in the achievement of affirmative
action objectives. Section 13A. See
also, Questions 30 and 31.
30. Q. When may a user be race, sex
or ethnic-conscious?
A. The Guidelines recognize that af-
firmative action, programs may be
race, sex or ethnic conscious in appro-
priate circumstances, (See Sections 4E
and 13; See also Section 17, Appendix).
In addition to obligatory affirmative
action programs (See Question 29), the
Guidelines encourage the adoption of
voluntary affirmative action programs.
Users choosing to engage in voluntary
affirmative action are referred to
EEOC's Guidelines on Affirmative
Action (44 F.R. 4422, January 19,
1979). A user may justifiably be race,
sex or ethnic-conscious in circum-
stances where it has reason to believe
that qualified persons of specified
race, sex or ethnicity have been or
may be subject to the exclusionary ef-
fects of its selection procedures or
other employment practices in its
work force or particular jobs therein.
In establishing long and short range
goals, the employer may use the race,
sex, or ethnic classification as the
basis for such goals (Section 17(3) (a)).
In establishing a recruiting program,
the employer may direct its recruiting
activities to locations or institutions
which have a high proportion of the
race, sex, or ethnic group which has
been excluded or underutilized (sec-
tion 17(3) (b)). In establishing the pool
of qualified persons from which final
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 43-FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1979
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release ! O P4 %-01114R000300050001-8
36. Q. How can users Justify contin-
ued use of a procedure on a basis other
than validity?
A. Normally, the method of justify-
ing selection procedures with an ad-
verse Impact and the method to which
the Guidelines are primarily ad-
dressed, is validation. The method of
justification of a procedure by means
other than validity is one to which the
Guidelines are not addressed.-See Sec-
tion 6B. In Griggs v. Duke Power Co.,
401 U.S. 424, the Supreme Court indi-
cated 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; therefore, the Federal agencies
will consider evidence that a selection
procedure is necessary for the safe and
efficient operation of a business to jus-
tify continued use of a selection proce-
dure.
37. Q, is the demonstration of a ra-
tional relationship (as that term is
used in constitutional law) between a
selection procedure and the job suffi-
cient to meet the validation require-
ments of the Guidelines?
A. No. The Supreme Court in Wash-
ington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)
stated that different standards would
be applied to employment discrimina-
tion allegations arising under the Con-
stitution than would be applied to em-
ployment 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 constitu-
tional law standard of "rational rela-
tionship" and said that it would defer
to the "seemingly reasonable acts of
administrators and executives." How-
ever, 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
measures of job performance by
means of accepted procedures of vali-
dation and It 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 relation-
ship between a selection procedure
and the job does not meet the require-
ment 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 Omni-
bus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968, as amended, and will not
meet the requirements of these Guide-
lines for a validity study. The three
validity strategies called for by these
Guidelines all require evidence that
the selection procedure is related to
successful performance on the job.
That evidence may be obtained
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 proce-
dures 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
Employment Services, that a test bat-
tery or other selection procedure has
been validated is not sufficient to sat-
isfy 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
principles of validity research, includ-
ing a member of the user's staff or a
consultant. However, it is the user's re-
sponsibility to see that the study
.nets validity provisions of the Guide-
lines, which are based upon profes-
sionally accepted standards. See Ques-
tion 42.
40. Q. What Is the relationship be-
tween the validation provisions of the
Guidelines and other statements of
psychological principles, such as the
Standards for Educational and Psy-
chological Tests, published by the
American Psychological Association
(Wash., D.C., 1974) (hereinafter
"American Psychological Association
Standards")?
A. The validation provisions of the
Guidelines are designed to be consist-
ent with the generally accepted stand-
ards of the psychological profession.
These Guidelines also interpret Feder-
al equal employment opportunity law,
and embody some policy determina-
tions of an administrative nature. To
the extent that there may be differ-
ences between particular provisions of
the Guidelines and expressions of vali-
dation 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 elimina-
tion 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 con-
tinue the use of a selection procedure
with an adverse impact until the pro-
cedure 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 con-
tracts, 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
from having a validation study com-
pleted or well underway before the
procedure are administered for use in
employment decisions.
42. Q. Where can a user obtain pro-
fessional advice concerning validation
of selection procedures?
A. Many industrial and personnel
psychologists validate selection proce-
dures, review published evidence of va-
lidity and make recommendations
with respect to the use of selection
procedures. Many of these individuals
are members or fellows of Division 14
(Industrial and Organizational Psy-
chology) or Division 5 (Evaluation and
Measurement) of the American Psy-
chological Association. They can be
identified in the membership directory
of that organization. A high level of
qualification is represented by a diplo-
ma in Industrial Psychology awarded
Psychology.
Individuals with the necessary com-
petence may come from a variety of
backgrounds. The primary qualifica-
tion is pertinent training and experi-
ence in the conduct of validation re-
search. ,
Industrial psychologists and other
persons competent in the field may be
found as faculty members in colleges
and universities (normally In the de-
partments of psychology or business
administration) or working as individ-
ual consultants or as members of s
consulting organization.
Not all psychologists have the neces-
sary expertise. States have boards
which license and certify psycholo-
gists, but not generally in a specialty
such as industrial psychology. Howev-
er, State psychological associations
may be a source of information as to
individuals qualified to conduct valida-
tion studies. Addresses of State psy-
chological associations or other
sources of information may be ob-
tained from the American Psychologi-
cal Association, 1200 Seventeenth
Street. NW., Washington, D.C. 20038.
43. Q. Can a selection procedure be a
valid predictor of performance on a
job in a certain location and be invalid
for predicting success on a different
job or the same job in a different loca-
tion?
A. Yes. Because of differences in
work behaviors, criterion measures,
study samples orother factors, a selec-
tion procedure found to have validity
in one situation does not necessarily
have validity in different circum-
stances. Conversely, a selection proce-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 al S AND REGULATIONS
Approved for Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
dare not found to have validity in one
situation may have validity in differ-
ent circumstances. For these reasons,
the Guidelines requires that certain
standards be satisfied before a user
may rely upon findings of validity in
another situation. Section 7 and Sec-
tion 14D. See also, Question 66. Coop-
erative and multi-unit studies are how-
ever encouraged, and, when those
standards of the Guidelines are satis-
-fied, validity evidence specific to each
location is not required. See Section
7C and Section 8.
44. Q. Is the user of a selection pro-
cedure required to develop the proce-
dure?
A. No. A selection procedure devel-
oped elsewhere may be used. However,
the user has the obligation to show
that Its use for the particular job is
consistent with the Guidelines. See
Section 7.
45. Q, Do the Guidelines permit
users to engage In cooperative efforts
to meet the Guidelines?
A. Yes. The Guidelines not only
permit but encourage such efforts.
Where users have participated in a co-
operative study which meets the vali-
dation standards of these Guidelines
and proper account has been taken of
variables which might affect the appli-
cability of the study to specific users,
validity evidence specific to each user
will not be required. Section 8.
46. Q. Must the same method for
validation be used for all parts of a se-
lection process?
A. No. For example, where a selec-
tion process includes both a physical
performance test and an interview, the
physical test might be supported on
the basis of content validity, and the
interview on the basis of a criterion-re-
lated study.
47. Q. Is a showing of validity sufli-
cient to assure the lawfulness of the
use of a selection procedure?
A. No. The use of the selection pro-
cedure must be consistent with the va-
lidity evidence. For example, if a re-
search study shows only that, at a
given passing score the test satisfacto-
rily screens out probable failures, the
study would not justify the use of sub-
stantially different passing scores, or
of ranked lists of those who passed.
See Section 50. Similarly, if the re-
search shows that a battery is valid
when a particular set of weights is
used, the weights actually used must
conform to those that were estab-
lished by the research.
48. Q. Do the Guidelines call for a
user to consider and investigate alter-
native selection procedures when con-
ducting a validity study?
A, Yes., The Guidelines call for a
user, when conducting a validity
study, to make a reasonable effort to
'become aware of suitable alternative
selection procedures and methods of
which are'suitable. Section 3B.
An alternative procedure may not
previously have been used by the user
for the Job in question and may not
have been extensively used elsewhere.
Accordingly, the preliminary determi-
nation of the suitability of the alter-
native selection procedure for the user
and job in question may have to be
made on the basis of incomplete infor-
mation. If on the basis of the evidence
available, the user determines that the
alternative selection procedure is
likely to meet its legitimate needs, and
is likely to have less adverse impact
than the existing selection procedure,
the alternative should be investigated
further as a part of the validity study.
The extent of the investigation should
be reasonable. Thus, the investigation
should continue until the user has rea-
sonably concluded that the alternative
is not useful or not suitable, or until a
study of its validity has been complet-
ed. Once the full validity study has
been completed, including the evi-
dence concerning the alternative pro-
cedure, the user should evaluate the
results of the study to determine
which procedure should be used. See
Section 3B and Question 50.
49. Q. Do the Guidelines call for a
user continually to investigate "suit-
able alternative selection procedures
and suitable alternative methods of
using the selection procedure which
have as little adverse impact as possi-
ble"?
A. No. There is no requirement for
continual investigation. A reasonable
investigation of alternatives is called
for by the Guidelines as a part of any
validity study. Once the study is com-
plete and validity has been found,
however, there is generally no obliga-
tion to conduct further investigations,
until such time as a new study is called
for. See, Sections 313 and 5K. If a gov-
ernment agency, complainant, civil
rights organization or other person
having a legitimate interest shows
such a user an alternative procedure
with less adverse impact and with sub-
stantial evidence of validity for the
same job in similar circumstances, the
user is obliged to investigate only the
particular procedure which has been
presented. Section 3B.
50. Q. In what circumstances do the
Guidelines call for the use of an alter-
native selection procedure or an alter-
native method of using the procedure?
A. The alternative selection proce-
dure (or method of use) should be
used when It has less adverse impact
and when the evidence shows that its
validity is substantially the same or
greater for the same job in similar cir-
cumstances. Thus, if under the origi-
nal selection procedure the selection
rate for black applicants was only one
half (50 percent) that of the selection
rate for white applicants, whereas
under the alternative selection proce-
dure the selection rate for blacks is
two-thirds (67 percent) that of white
applicants, the new alternative selec-
tion procedure should be used when
the evidence shows substantially the
same or greater validity for the alter-
native 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 substan-
tially 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 be-
tween selection procedure scores and
criterion measures, and the size and
composition of the samples used. For
content validity, the strength of valid-
ity evidence would depend upon the
proportion of critical and/or impor-
tant job behaviors measured, and the
extent to which the selection proce-
dure resembles actual work samples or
work behaviors. Where selection pro-
cedures have been validated by differ-
ent strategies, or by construct. validity,
the determination should be made on
a case by case basi, .
52. Q. The Guidelines require 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
procedure. How can a user know that
any selection procedure with an ad-
verse impact is lawful?
A. The Uniform Guidelines (Section
5G) expressly permit the use of a pro-
cedure in a manner supported by the
evidence of validity and utility, even if
another method of use has a lesser ad-
verse impact. With respect to consider-
ation of alternative selection proce-
dures, if the user made a reasonable
effort to become aware of alternative
procedures, has considered them and
investigated those which appear suit-
able as a part of the validity study,
and has shown validity for a proce-
dure, the user has complied with the
Uniform Guidelines. The burden is
then on the person challenging the
procedure to show that there is an-
other procedure with better or sub-
stantially equal validity which will ac-
complish the same legitimate business
purposes with less adverse impact. Sec-
tion 3B. See also, Albemarle Paper Co.
v. Moody, 422 U.S. 105.
53. Q. Are the 'Guidelines consistent
with the decision of the Supreme
Court in Furnco Construction Cbrp. v.
Waters, - U.S. ,-, 98 S. Ct. 2943
(1978) where the Court stated: .'TItle
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release /08/'f4RE8-01114R000300050001-8
VII ' * * does not impose a duty to
adopt a hiring procedure that maxi-
mizes hiring of minority employees."
A. Yes. The quoted statement in
Furnco v. Waters was made on a
record where there was no adverse
impact in the hiring process, no differ-
ent treatment, no intentional discrimi-
nation, and no contractual obligations
under E.O. 11246. Section 3B of the
Guidelines is predicated upon a find-
ing of adverse impact. Section 3B indi-
cates that, when two or more selection
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 ad-
verse impact. Part V of the Overview
of the Uniform Guidelines, in elabo-
rating on this principle, states: "Feder-
al equal employment opportunity law
has added a requirement to the proc-
ess of validation. In conducting a vali-
dation 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 Su-
preme Court decision in Albermarle
Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405
(1975) that, even where job related-
ness has been proven, the availability
of other tests or selection devices
which would also serve the employer's
legitimate interest in "efficient and
trustworthy workmanship" without a
similarly undesirable 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 obligation to consider alterna-
tive procedures which reduce or
remove that adverse impact if an op-
portunity presents itself to do so with-
out sacrificing validity. Where there is
no adverse impact, the Furnco princi-
ple rather than the Albermarle princi-
ple 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) ap-
propriate for the type of selection pro-
cedure, the job, and the employment
situation, and (2) technically and ad-
ministratively 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 indicative of level of per-
formance on the job after selection.
Thus, a criterion-related study, par-
ticularly a predictive one, is often re-
garded as the closest to such an ideal.
See American Psychological Associ-
ation Standards, pp. 26-27.
Key conditions for a criterion-relat-
ed study are a substantial number of
individuals for inclusion in the study,
and a considerable range of perform-
ance on the selection and criterion
measures. In addition, reliable and
valid measures of job performance
should be available, or capable of
being , developed. Section 14B(1).
Where such circumstances exist, a
user should consider use of the crite-
rion-related strategy.
Content validity is appropriate
where it is technically and administra-
tively feasible to develop work samples
or measures of operationally defined
skills, knowledges, or abilities which
are a necessary prerequisite to observ-
able work behaviors. Content validity
is not appropriate for demonstrating
the validity of tests of mental process-
es or aptitudes or characteristics; 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 valid-
ity strategy to support employee selec-
tion procedures is newer and less de-
veloped than criterion-related or con-
tent validity strategies. Continuing re-
search may result in construct validity
becoming more widely used. Because
construct validity represents a gener-
alization 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 appro-
priate. More than one strategy may be
possible in other circumstances, in
which case administrative consider-
ations such as time and expense may
be decisive. A combination of ap-
proaches may be feasible and desir-
able.
55. Q. Why do' the Guidelines recog-
nize only content, construct and crite-
rion-related validity?
A. These three validation strategies
are recognized in the Guidelines since
they represent the current profession-
al consensus. If the professional
commmunity recognizes new strategies
or substantial modifications of exist-
ing strategies, they will be considered
and, if necessary, changes will be made
in the Guidelines. Section 5A.
56. Q. Why don't the Uniform
Guidelines state a preference for crite-
rion-related validity over content or
construct validity?
A. Generally accepted principles of
the psychological profession support
the use of criterion-related, content or
construct validity strategies as appro-
priate. American Psychological Associ-
ation Standards, E, pp. 25-26. This use
was recognized by the supreme Court
in Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229,
247, in. 13. Because the Guidelines de-
scribe the conditions under which
each validity strategy is inappropriate,
there is no reason to state a general
preference for any one validity strat-
egy.
57. Q. Are the Guidelines intended
to restrict the development of new
testing strategies, psychological the-
ories, methods of job analysis or statis-
tical techniques?
A. No. The Guidelines are concerned
with the validity and fairness of selec-
tion procedures used in making em-
ployment decisions, and are not in-
tended to limit research and new de-
velopments. See Question 55.
58. Q. Is a full job analysis necessary
for all validity studies?
A. It is required for all content and
construct studies, but not for all crite-
rion-related studies. See Sections 14A
and 14B(2). Measures of the results or
outcomes of work behaviors such as
production rate or error rate may be
used without a full job analysis where
a review of information about the job
shows that these criteria are impor-
tant to the employment situation of
the user. Similarly, measures such as
absenteeism, tardiness or turnover
may be used without a full job analy-
sis if these behaviors are shown by a
review of information about the job to
be important in the specific situation.
A rating of overall job performance
may be used without a full job analy-
sis only if the user can demonstrate its
appropriateness for the specific job
and employment situation through a
study of the job. The Supreme Court
held in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody.
422 U.S. 405 (1975), that measures of
overall job performance should be
carefully developed and their use
should be standardized and controlled.
59. Q. Section 5J on interim use re-
quires the user to have available sub-
stantial evidence of validity. What
does this mean?
A. For purposes of compliance with
5J, "substantial evidence" means evi-
dence which may not meet all the vali-
dation requirements of the Guidelines
but which raises a strong inference
that validity pursuant to these stand-
ards will soon be shown. Section 5J is
based on the proposition that it would
not be an appropriate allocation of
Federal resources to bring enforce-
ment proceedings against a user who
would soon be able to satisfy fully the
standards of the Guidelines. For ex-
ample, a criterion-related study may
have produced evidence which meets
almost all of the requirements of the
Guidelines with the exception that
the gathering of the data of test fair-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release ibPli--01114R000300050001-8
. is still in progress and the fair-
new has not yet produced re-
sults. If the correlation coefficient for
the group as a whole permits the
Aw 'fig Inference that the selection
procedure Is valid, then the selection
procedure may be used on an interim
basis pending the completion of the
fairness study.
O.. What are the potential conse-
quences to a user when a selection pro-
cedure is used on an interm basis?
A. The fact that the Guidelines
permit Interim use of a selection pro-
cedure under some conditions does not
Immunize the user from liability for
back pay, attorney fees and the like,
should use of the selection procedure
later be found to be in violation of the
Guidelines. Section 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
during the period of interim use.
al. 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 provi-
sion for retesting is that an applicant
who was not selected should be given
another chance. Particularly in the
case of job-knowledge test,% security
precautions may preclude retesting
with the same test after a short time.
However, the opportunity for 1-etesting
should be provided for the same job at
a later time, when the applicant may
have acquired more of the relevant job
ranking must rest on an Inference that
higher scores on the procedure are re-
lated to better job performance. The
more closely and completely the selec-
tion procedure approximates the Im-
portant work behaviors, the easier it is
to make such an Inference. Evidence
that better performance on the proce-
dure 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 associ-
ation between levels of performance
on the procedure and on the job. To
support a test of job knowledge on a
content validity bpis, 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 dem-
onstrated from empirical evidence
either that mastery of more difficult
work behaviors, or that mastery of a
greater scope of knowledge corre-
sponds 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 ob-
jects is essential or would result in sig-
nificantly better job performance. In
this case a test of ability to lift 50
pounds could be justified on a content
basis for a pass/fall determi-
validity
,
knowledges. ? nation- However, ranking of candi-
f
62 Q. Under what circumstances dates based on relative amount o
may a selection procedure be used for weight that can be lifted would be in-
ranking? appropriate.
A. Criterion-related and construct In another instance, a job analysis
validity strategies are essentially em- may reflect that, for the job of ma-
pirlcal, statistical processes showing a chine operator, reading of simple
relationship between performance on Instructions is not a major part of the
the selection procedure and perform- job but is essential. Thus, reading
ance on the job. To justify ranking would be a critical behavior under the
sander such validity strategies, there- Guidelines. See Section 14C(8). since
fore the user need show mathematical the job analysis in this example did
, support for the proposition that per- not also show that the ability to read
t
kl
o
y or
sows who receive higher scores on the such instructions more quic
procedure are likely to perform better would be understand more re result in better job
on the job.
Content validity, on the other hand, performance, a reading test suported
rimarily a judgmental process con- by content validity alone should be
IS
p
so cerned with the adequacy of the selec- used on a pass/fail rather than a rank-
tion procedure as a sample of the work ing basis. In such circumstances, use of
'behaviors. Use of a selection procedure the test for ranking would have to be
on a ranking basis may be supported supported by evidence from a crite-
by content validity if there is evidence rion_related (or construct) validity
d La that what is measured by the se- On the other hand, In the case of a
rocedure is associated with person to be hired for a typing pool,
tion
l
p
ec
differences In levels of job perform- the job analysis may show that the job
Mabe. Section 14C(9); see also Section consists almost entirely of typing from
manuscript, and that productivity can
Any conclusion that a content vali- be measured directly in terms of fin-
dated procedure is appropriate for ished typed copy. For such a job,
12006
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 adjustments 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 ad-
ministered by an employment agency
or a consultant for an employer, Is the
employer relieved of responsibilities
under the Guidelines?
A. No. The employer remains re-
sponsible. It Is therefore expected that
the employer will have sufficient in-
formation available to show: (a) What
selection procedures are being used on
its behalf; (b) the total number of ap-
plicants for referral by race, sex and
ethnic group; (c) the number of per-
sons, by race, sex and ethnic group, re-
ferred 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-RZL ATED VALIDITY
64. Q. Under what circumstances
may success In training be used as E
criterion in criterion-related validity
studies?
A. Success in training is an appropri-
ate criterion when it is (1) necessary
for successful job performance or has,
been shown to be related to degree of
proficiency on the job and (2) properly
measured. Section 14B(3). The meas-
ure of success in training should be
carefully developed to ensure that fac-
tors which are not job related do not
influence the measure of training suc-
cess. Section 14B(3;.
65. Q. When may concurrent validity
be used?
A. A concurrent validity strategy as-
sumes that the findings from a crite-
rion-related validity study of current
.employees can be applied to applicants
for the same job. Therefore, if concur-
rent validity 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 difference; between the ap-
plicant group and current employees
used In the research sample which are
caused by work experience or other
work related events or by prior selec-
tion 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 crite-
rion-related validity study done else-
where?
FEDERAL 1t5Gt3TW4 VOL 44, HO. 43-FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1979
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 12006
Approved For Release 2BW88W:R?WW 01114R000300050001-8
A. A validity study done elsewhere the American Psychological Associ-
may provide sufficient evidence if four ation Standards published in 1974 call
conditions are met (Sec. 7B): for the investigation of test fairness in
i. The evidence from the other stud- criterion-related studies wherever feas-
ies clearly demonstrates that the pro- ible (pp. 43-44).
cedure was valid in its use elsewhere. 70. Q. What should be done if a se-
2. The job(s) for which the selection lection procedure is unfair for one or
procedure will be used closely matches more groups in the relevant labor
the job(s) in the original study as market?
shown by a comparison of major work A. 'The Guidelines discuss three op-
behaviors as shown by the job analy- tions. See Section 14B(8)(d). First, the
ses in both contexts. selection instrument may be replaced
3. Evidence of fairness from the by another validated instrument
other studies is considered for those which is fair to all groups. Second, the
groups constituting a significant factor selection instrument may be revised to
in the user's labor market. Section eliminate the sources of unfairness.
7B(3). Where the evidence is not avail- For example, certain items may be
able the user should conduct an inter- found to be the only ones which cause
nal study of test fairness, if technical- the unfairness to a particular group,
ly feasible. Section 7B(3). and these items may be deleted or re-
4. Proper account is taken of varia- placed by others,, Finally, revisions
bles which might affect the applicabil- may be made in the method of use of
Ity of the study in the new setting, the selection procedure to ensure that
such as performance standards, work
methods, representativeness of the compatible the probability
with h wit the selected
of suc-
sample in terms of experience or other ible e being
probability of uc
relevant factors, and the currency of c The es e job Federal eral performance.
the study. enforcement agencies
67. Q. What does "unfairness of a se_ recognize that there is serious debate
lection procedure" mean? in the psychological profession on the
question of test fairness, and that in-
A. When a specific score on a selec-
tion
tion procedure has a different mean- formation on that concept is develop-
ing in terms of expected job perform- ing. Accordingly, the enforcement
since for members of one race, sex or agencies will consider developments in
ethnic group than the same score does this field in evaluating actions occa-
for members of another group, the use sioned by a finding of test unfairness.
of that selection procedure may be 71. Q. How is test unfairness related
unfair for members of one of the to differential validity and to differen-
groups. See section 16V. For example, tial prediction?
if members of one group have an aver- A. Test unfairness refers to use of se-
age score of 40 on the selection proce- lection procedures based on scores
dure, but perform on the job as well as when members of one group charac-
another group which has an average teristically obtain lower scores than
score of 50, then some uses of the se- members of another group, and the
lection procedure would be unfair to differences are not reflected in meas-
the members of the lower. scoring tires of job performance. See Sections
group. See Question 70. 16V and 14B(8)(a), and Question 67.
68. Q. When should the user investi- Differential validity and test unfair-
gate the question of fairness? ness are conceptually distinct. Differ-
A. Fairness should be investigated ential validity is defined as a situation
generally at the same time that a cri- in which a given instrument has sig-
terion-related validity study is con- nificantly different validity coeffi-
ducted, or as soon thereafter as feasi- cients for different race, sex or ethnic
ble. Section 14B(8). groups. Use of a test may be unfair to
69. Q. Why do the Guidelines re- some groups even when differential
quire that users look for. evidence of validity is not found.
unfairness? Differential prediction is a central
A. The consequences of using unfair concept for one definition of test un-
selection procedures are severe in fairness. Differential prediction occurs
terms of discriminating against appli- when the use of the same set of scores
cants on the basis of race, sex or systematically overpredicts or under-
ethnic group membership. According- predicts job performance for members
ly, these studies should be performed of one group as compared to members
routinely where technically feasible of another group.
and appropriate, whether or not the Other definitions of test unfairness
probability of finding unfairness is which do not relate to differential pre-
small. Thus, the Supreme Court indi- diction may, however, also be appro-
cated in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, priately applied to employment deci-
422 U.S. 405, that a validation study sions. Thus these Guidelines are not
was "materially deficient" because, intended to choose between fairness
among other reasons, it failed to inves- models as long as the model selected is
tigate fairness where it was not shown appropriate to the manner in which
to be unfeasible to do so. Moreover, the selection procedure is used.
72. Q. What options does a user have
if a criterion-related study is appropri-
ate 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 circum-
stances, such as:.
1. Change the procedure so as to
eliminate adverse impact (see Section
@A);
2. Validate a procedure through a
content validity strategy, if appropri-
ate (see Section 14C and Questions 54
and 74);
3. Use a selection procedure validat-
ed elsewhere in conformity with the
Guidelines (see Sections 7-8 and Ques-
tion 66); '
4. Engage in a cooperative study
with other facilities or users (in coop-
eration with such users either bilater-
ally or through industry or trade asso-
ciations or governmental groups), or
participate in research studies con-
ducted by the state employment secu-
rity system. Where different 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).
D. COMENT VALIDITY
73. Q. Must a selection procedure
supported by content validity be an
actual "on the job" sample of work be-
haviors?
A. No. The Guidelines emphasize
the importance of a close approxima-
tion between the content of the selec-
tion procedure and the observable be-
haviors or products of the job, so as to
minimize the inferential leap between
performance on the selection proce-
dure and job performance. However,
the Guidelines also permit justifica-
tion on the basis of content validity of
selection procedures measuring knowl-
edges, skills, or abilities which are not
necessarily samples of work behaviors
if: (1) The knowledge, skill, or ability
being measured is operationally de-
fined in accord with Section 14C(4);
and (2.) that knowledge, skill, or ability
is a prerequisite for critical or impor-
tant work behaviors. In addition users
may justify a requirement for train-
ing, or for experience obtained from
prior employment or volunteer work,
on the basis of content validity, even
though the prior training or experi-
ence 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?
FEDERAL REti1STIR, VOL 44, NO. 43--F DAY, MARCH 2, 1979
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 26NW8'9'P: 4UWs01114R000300050001-8
is not appropriate where the selection
procedure involves knowledges, 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. Howev-
er, if an ability, such as speaking and
understanding a language, takes a sub-
stantial length of time to learn, is re-
quired 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 di-
rectly observable. They'are therefore
not appropriate for the sampling ap-
proach of content validity. Some selec-
tion procedures, while labeled as con-
struct measures, may actually be sam-
ples of observable work behaviors.
Whatever the label, if the operational
definitions are in fact based upon ob-
servable work behaviors, a selection
procedure measuring those behaviors
may be appropriately supported by a
content validity strategy. For example,
while a measure of the construct "de-
pendability" should not be supported
on the basis of content validity,
promptness and regularity of attend-
ance in a prior work record are fre-
quently inquired into as a part of a se-
lection procedure, and such measures
may be supported on the basis of con-
tent validity.
76. Q. May a -test which measures
what the employee has learned in a
training program be justified for use
in employment decisions on the basis
of content validity?
A. Yes. While the Guidelines (Sec-
tion 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 con-
tent validity is not appropriate for de-
termining 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 re-
quired by the Guidelines. However,
the job analysis should describe all im-
portant work behaviors and their rela-
tive importance and their level of diffi-
culty. Sections 14C(2) and 15C(3). The
job analysis should focus on observ-
able work behaviors and, to the extent
appropriate, observable work products,
and the tasks associated with the im-
portant observable work behaviors
and/or work products. The job analy-
sis should identify how the critical or
important work behaviors are used in
the job, and should support the con-
tent 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 repli-
cate 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 envi-
ronmental conditions. 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 bookkeeping). Paper-and-pencil
tests of effectiveness 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) gener-
ally are not close enough approxima-
tions of work behaviors to show con-
tent validity.
The appropriateness of tests of job
knowledge, whether or not in pencil
and paper form, is addressed in Ques-
tion 79.
79. Q. What is required to show the
content validity of a test of a job
knowledge?
A. There must be a defined, well rec-
ognized body of information, and
knowledge of the information must be
prerequisite to performance of'the re-
quired work behaviors. The work
behavior(s) to which each knowledge
is related should be identified on an
item by item basis. The test should
fairly sample the information that is
actually used by the employee on the
job, so that the level of difficulty of
the test -items should correspond to.
the level of difficulty of the knowl-
edge as used in the work behavior. See
Section 14C(1) and (4).
80. Q. Under content validity, may a
selection procedure for entry into a
job be justified on the grounds that
the knowledges, skills or abilities
measured by the selection procedure
are prerequisites to successful per-
formance in a training program?
A. Yes, but only if the training mate-
rial and the training program closely
approximate the content and level of
difficulty of the job and if the knowl-
edges, skills or abilities are not those
taught in the training program. For
example, if training materials are at a
level of reading difficulty substantially
in excess of the reading difficulty of
materials used on the job, the Guide-
lines would not permit justification on
a content validity basis of a reading
test based on those training materials
for entry into the Jab.
Under the Guidelines a training pro-
gram itself is a selection procedure if
passing it is a prerequisite to retention
or advancement. See Section 2C and
14C(17). As such, the content of the
training program may only be justified
by the relationship between the pro-
gram and critical or important behav-
iors of the job itself, or through a
demonstration of the relationship be-
tween measures of performance in
training and measures of job perform-
ance.
Under the example given above,
therefore, where the requirements in
the training materials exceed those on
the job, the training program itself
could not be validated on a content va-
lidity basis if passing it is a basis for
retention or promotion.
C. CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
81. Q. In Section 5, "General Stand-
ards for Validity Studies," construct
validity is identified as no less accept-
able than criterion-related and con-
tent validity. However, the specific re-
quirements for construct validity, in
Section 14D, seem to limit the gen.-
eralizability of construct validity to
the rules governing criterion-related
validity. Can this apparent inconsis-
tency be reconciled?
A. Yes. In view of the developing
nature of construct validation for em-
ployment selection procedures, the ap-
proach taken concerning the gen-
eralizability of construct validity (sec-
tion 14D) is intended to be a cautious
one. However, construct validity may
be generalized in circumstances where
transportability of tests supported on
the basis of criterion-related validity
would not be appropriate. In establish-
ing transportability of criterion-relat-
ed validity, the jobs should have sub-
stantially the sane major work behav-
iors. Section 7B(2), Construct validity,
on the other hand, allows for situa-
tions where only some of the impor-
tant work behaviors are the same.
Thus, well-established measures of the
construct, which underlie particular
work behaviors and which have been
shown to be valid for some jobs may
be generalized to other jobs which
have some of the same work behaviors
but which are different with respect to
other work behaviors. Section 14D(4).
As further research and professional
guidance on construct validity in em-
ployment situations emerge, addition-
al extensions of construct validity for
employee selection may become gener-
ally accepted in the profession. The
agencies encourage further research
and professional guidance with respect
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 43-FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1979
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 12008 Approved For ReleasEKYWIMPISEQ 'R 189-01114R000300050001-8
to the appropriate use of construct va-
lidity.
V. RECORDS AND DOCUMENTATION
82. Q. Do the Guidelines have sim-
plified recordkeeping for small users
(employers who employ one hundred
or fewer employees and other users
not required to file EEO-1, et seq. re-
ports)?
A. Yes. Although small users are
fully covered by Federal equal employ-
ment opportunity law, the Guidelines
have reduced their record-keeping
burden. See option in Section 15A(1).
Thus, small users need not make ad-
verse 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 strate-
gies are not feasible. See Question 54.
If a small user has reason to believe
that its selection procedures have ad-
verse impact and validation is not fea-
sible, it should consider other options.
See Sections 7A and 8 and Questions
31, 36, 45, 66, and 72.
83. Q. Is the requirement in the
Guidelines that users maintain records
of the race, national origin, and sex of
employees and applicants constitution-
al?
A. Yes. For example, the United
State. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit rejected a challenge on consti-
tutional and other grounds to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission regulations requiring State
and local governmental units to fur-
nish 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. The Court held that the
recordkeeping and reporting require-
ments promulgated under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amend-
ed, were reasonably necessary for the
Federal agency to determine whether
the state was in compliance with Title
VII and thus were authorized and con-
stitutional. The same legal principles
apply to recordkeeping with respect to
applicants.
Under the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution, the Federal law requir-
ing maintenance of records identifying
race, sex and national origin overrides
any contrary provi;;ion of State law.
See Question 8.
The agencies recognize, however,
that such laws have been enacted to
prevent misuse of this information.
Thus, employers should take appropri-
ate steps to ensure proper use of all
data. See Question #88.
84. Q. Is the user obliged to keep rec-
ords which show whether its selection
processes have an adverse impact on
race, sex, or ethnic groups?
A. Yes. Under the Guidelines users ent procedures that capture the neces-
are obliged to maintain evidence indi- sary information. Where applications
eating the impact which their selec- are made in person, a user may main-
tion processes have on identifiable tain a log or applicant flow chart
race, sex or ethnic groups. Sections 4 based upon.visual observation, identi-
A and B. If the selection process for a fying the number of persons express-
job does have an adverse impact on ing an interest, by sex and by race or
one or more such groups, the user is national origin; may in some circum-
expected to maintain records showing stances rely upon personal knowledge
the impact for the individual proce- of the user; or may rely upon self-iden-
dures. Section 15A(2). tification. Where applications are not
85. Q. What are the recordkeeping made in person and the applicants are
obligations of a user who cannot deter- not personally known to the employer,
mine whether a selection process for a self-identification may be appropriate.
job has adverse impact because it Wherever a self-identification form is
makes an insufficient number of selec- used, the employer should advise the
tions for that job in a year? applicant that identification by race,
A. In such circumstances the user sex and national origin is sought, not
should collect, maintain, and have for employment decisions, but for
available information on the impact.of record-keeping in compliance with
the selection process and the compo- Federal law. Such self-identification
vent procedures until it can determine forms should be kept separately from
that adverse impact does not exist for the application, and should not be a
the overall process or until the job has basis for employment decisions; and
changed substantially. Section the applicants should be so advised.
15A(2)(c). See Section 4B.
86. Q. Should applicant and selection 89..Q. What information should be
information be maintained for race or included in documenting a validity
ethnic groups constituting less than study for purposes of these Guide-
2% of the labor force and the appl- lines?
cants? A. Generally, reports of validity
A. Small employers and other small studies should contain all the informa-
users are not obliged to keep such rec- tion necessary to permit an enforce-
ords. Section 15A(1). Employers with ment agency to conclude whether a, se-
more than 100 employees and other lection procedure has been validated.
users required to file EEO-1 et W. re- Information that Is critical to this de-
ports should maintain records and termination is denoted in Section 15 of
other information upon which-impact the Guidelines by the word "(essen-
determinations could be made, because tial)".
section 15A2 requires the maintenance Any reports completed after Septem-
of such information for "any of the ber 25, 1978, (the effective date of the
groups for which records are called for Guidelines) which do not contain this
by section 4B above." See also, Section information will be considered incom-
? plete by the agencies unless there is
No user, regardless of size, is re- good reason for not including the in-
quired to make adverse impact deter- formation. Users should therefore pre-
minations for race or ethnic groups pare validation reports according to
constituting less than 2% of the labor the format of Section 15 of the Guide-
force and the applicants. See Question lines, and should carefully document
16, the reasons if any of the information
87. Q. Should information be main- labeled "(essential)" is missing.
tained which identifies applicants and The major elements for all types of
persons selected both by sex and by validation studies include the follow-
race or ethnic group? ing:
A. Yes. Although the Federal agen- When and where the study was con-
cies have decided not to require com- ducted.
potations of adverse impact by sub- A description of the selection proce-
groups (white males, black males, dure, how it is used, and the results by
white females, black females-see race, sex, and ethnic group.
Question 17), the Guidelines call for How the job was analyzed or re-
record keeping which allows identifica- viewed and what information was ob-
tion of persons by sex, combined with tained from this job analysis or review.
race or ethnic group, so as to permit The evidence demonstrating that
the identification of discriminatory the selection procedure is related to
practices on any such basis. Section 4A the job. The nature of this evidence
and 4B. varies, depending upon the strategy
88. Q. How should a user collect data used.
on race, sex or ethnic classifications What alternative selection proce-
for purposes of determining the dures and alternative methods of
impact of selection procedures? using the selection procedure were
A. The Guidelines have not specified studied and the results of this study.
any particular procedure, and the en- The name, address and telephone
forcement agencies will accept differ- number of a contact person who can
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 43--FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1979
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2/b6W~-01114R000300050001-8
provide further information about the work behaviors which involve the con-
study. struct.
The documentation requirements 90. Q. Although the records called
for each validation strategy are set for under "Source Data", Section
forth in detail in Section 15 B, C. D, E. 15B(11) and section 15D(11), are not
F, and G. Among the requirements for listed as "Essential", the Guidelines
each validity strategy are the follow- state that each user should maintain
ing: such records, and have them available
1. Criterion-Related Validity upon request of a compliance agency.
A description of the criterion meal- Are these records necessary? Does the
ures of job performance, how and why absence of complete records preclude
they were selected, and how they were the further use of research data com-
used to evaluate employees. piled prior to the issuance of the
A description of the sample used in Guidelines?
the study, how it was selected, and the
size of each race, sex, or ethnic group A. The Guidelines require the main-
in it. tenance of these records in some form
A description of the statistical meth- as a necessary part of the study."
ods used to determine whether scores Section 15A(3)(c). However, such rec-
on the selection procedure are related ords need not be compiled or main-
to scores on the criterion measures of tained in any specific format. The
Job performance, and the results of term "Essential" as used in the Guide-
these statistical calculations. lines refers to information considered
2. Content Validity essential to the validity report. Section
The content of the job, as identified 15A(3)(b). The Source Data records
from the job analysis, need not be Included with reports of
The content of the selection proce- validation or other. formal reports
dure. until and unless they rare specifically
The evidence demonstrating that requested by a compliance agency.
the content of the selection procedure The absence of complete records does
is a representative sample of the con- not preclude use of research data
tent of the job. based on those records that are availa-
3. Construct Validity ble. Validation studies submitted to
A definition of the construct and comply with the requirements of the
how it relates to other constructs in Guidelines may be considered inad-
the psychological literature. equate to the extent that important
The evidence that the selection pro- data are missing or there is evidence
cedure measures the construct. that the collected data are inaccurate.
The evidence showing that the
measure of the construct is related to (FR Doc. 79-6323 Filed 3-1-79; 8:45 am]
rr
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 43-FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1979
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
would you
/?ke to know
if any changes have been made in
certain titles of the CODE OF
FEDERAL REGULATIONS without
reading the Federal Register every
day? If so, you may wish to subscribe
ks, to the LSA (List of CFR
l
"
Federa
Sections Affected), the
Register Index," or both.
LSA (List of CFR Sections Affected)
$10.00
per year
The LSA (List of CFR Sections
Affected) is designed to lead users of
the Code of Federal Regulations to
amendatory actions published in the
Federal Register. and is issued
mommy in cumulative form. En ries
indicate the nature of the changes.
Federal Register Index $8.00
per ye.ir
Indexes covering the
contents of the daily Federal Register are
issued monthly, quarterly, and annually.
Entries are Carried primarily under the
names of the issuing agencies. Significant
subjects are carried as cross-references.
A finding aid is included in each publication which lists
Federal Register page numbers with the date of publication
in the Federal Register.
Note to FR Subscribers: FR Indexes and the
LSA (List of CFR Sections Affected) will continue
to be mailed free of charge to regular FR subscribers.
Mail order form to:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
LSA (LIST OF CFR SECTIONS AFFECTED) ($10.00 a year domestic; $12.50 foreign)
FEDERAL REGISTER INDEX ($8.00 a year domestic; $10.00 foreign)
Name -.-
Street Address
City
Make check payable to the Superintendent of Documents
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
The new Uniform Guidelines are rooted in Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, specifically the Tower Amendment, which authorized
the use of "any professionally developed ability test, provided that
such test, its administration or action upon the results, is not designed,
intended or used to discriminate..." At first some employers contended
that this allowed them to use any test developed by a professional so long
as they did not intend to exclude women or minorities, even if such
exclusion was a consequence to test use.
In 1966, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
adopted the first set of guidelines to advise employers that their intent
was irrelevant: if a test or other practice had an adverse impact on
women and minorities, it was unlawful unless it could be justified; that
is, the employer would have to show that it fairly measured or predicted
performance on the job. In succeeding years, the EEOC, as well as the
Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
(OFCCP), elaborated on these guidelines and in 1970 expanded their
application to include all selection procedures.
Then, in 1971, in Griggs V. Duke Power Company, the Supreme Court
announced the principle that employer practices that had an adverse impact
on minorities and that were not justified by business necessity constituted
illegal discrimination under Title VII. The next year Congress confirmed
this 'interpretation in its amendments to Title VII, collectively called
the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. By this time, the EEOC,OFCCP and
and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) each had its own set of selection
guidelines and had received much criticism for the different and sometimes
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
contradictory standards.
Congress recognized this absurdity, and the 1972 Act created the
Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinating Council (EEOCC), whose membership
consisted of the CSC, EEOC, OFCCP, Civil Rights Commission and Department
of Justice. The first major effort of the Council was to prepare a set of
uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures to standarize the
position of the various agencies. Over the next few years, the Council
produced a seemingly endless procession of drafts and proposals, but it
failed to realize its major objective.
Finally, in November 1976, three of the five members of the Council --
the OFCCP, CSC and Justice -- issued a new set of guidelines known as
the "Federal Executive Agency Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures"
(or FEA Guidelines). The EEOC, which together with the Civil Rights
Commisssion refused to endorse the new guidelines, then reissued its
own 1970 selection guidelines.
This situation continued until 1977 when, with the advent of the
Carter administration, efforts were intensified to produce a unified
government position. Eventually an agreement was achieved, and on
December 30, 1977 a new proposal on uniform guidelines was published
in the Federal Register.
A public hearing was held in April 1978, certain changes based on
comments received were subsequently made, but the new Uniform Guidelines
stayed essentially intact. They were issued in final form in August,
1978, went into effect the following month, and now supercede both the
1970 EEOC and 1976 EEA guidelines.
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
The new Uniform Guidelines represent a compromise between the two
previous sets. Unchanged, however, is the fundamental principle underlying
all guidelines since 1966: employer policies or practices having an
adverse Impact on employment opportunities of any race, sex or ethnic group
are illegal unless justified by business necessity. Normally, "by business
necessity" means by validation which demonstrates the relation between the
selection procedure and performance on the job. A selection procedure
that has no adverse impact generally does not violate Title VII; that is,
an employer may usually avoid the validation requirements of the Guidelines
by using selection procedures that have no adverse impact.
The Guidelines require that the employer maintain and have available
for inspection records or other information that disclose the impact which
its tests and other selection procedures have upon employment opportunities
of persons by sex and five specified race and ethnic classification groups.
(If there are large numbers involved, the information may be based on
appropriate samples.) If the employer does not maintain this information,
the enforcement agencies may draw an inference of adverse impact, determine
whetheh a protected group is underutilized in a job category, and require
validation of the selection procedures.
Employers will be judged in the overall results of their selection
process, or against what is viewed as the "bottom line" concept. If
the information required shows that the total selection process does not
have an adverse impact, the employer under most circumstances will not
have to evaluate the individual components of the selection process for
adverse impact. If on the other hand this information does show that
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
the total selection process for a particular job or goup of jobs
has adverse impact, the individual components of that process must
consequently be evaluated for adverse impact.
Once the employer has established adverse impact, it can do one
of three things: modify or eliminate the procedure producing the
adverse -impact, or justify the use of the procedure on grounds of
"business necessity". This latter step ordinarily means that the
employer must show a clear relation between performance on the selection
procedure and performance on the job. In the language of industrial
psychology, the employer must validate the selection procedure. For
this reason the bulk of the guidelines, indeed the most technical and
controversial sections, consists of the Government's interpretation
of standards for validation.
-4-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 STATINTL
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures discuss,
among other things, adverse impact and the four-fifths rule. Adverse
impact is a substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion,
or other employment decision that works to the disadvantage of members of
racial, sex or ethnic group. The Guidelines state that a "selection rate
for any racial, ethnic or sex group which is less than four-fifths (4/5
or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will
be regarded as evidence of adverse impact . . ."
This is probably translated best by a couple of examples: suppose
he Agency had 120 applicants, 80 white and
40 black. Of this total, 60 were hired -- 48 white, 12 black. The
selection rate for white applicants was thus 48/80 or 60 percent while
that for the black applicants was 12/40 or 30 percent. In this example,
the selection process adversely affected the employment opportunities of
blacks, because their selection rate (30%) was only one half that of
whites (60%).
On the other hand, suppose there were 120 applicants of which 80
were white and 40 black, and the Agency selected 42 whites and 18 blacks.
In this case the selection rate for blacks would be 18/40, or 45%, while
that for whites would be 42/80, or 52,5%. Because the selection rate for
blacks as compared to that for whites is 45/52.5, or 85% (that is, more
than 80% or 4/5), the difference in impact would not be regarded as
substantial in the absence of additional information.
In some instances, a difference of more than 20% in selection rates
may not indicate adverse impact if the numbers involved are very small.
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
For example, if a promotion panel recommended three men and one woman
from a list of 20 men and 10 women, the 4/5 rule would indicate adverse
impact, because this selection rate for women is 10%, that for men is
15%; 10/15 is 66 2/3%, less than 80%. Yet these numbers are so small
that a difference in one person recommended would show an adverse impact
the other way. In such circumstances, according to the Guidelines, the
Agency would not be required to show validity for the selection process
in the absence of additional information.
It should be pointed out that the 4/5 rule speaks only to the
question of adverse impact and is not intended to resolve the ultimate
question of unlawful discrimination. Regardless of the amount of
difference in selection rates, unlawful discrimination may still be
present and may be demonstrated through other evidence. The 4/5 rule
simply establishes a numerical basis for drawing initial inference of
impact and for requiring additional information.
-2-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
a
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Simply stated, validation is the demonstration of the relation
between a selection procedure (for example, a test) and performance on
the job. Validity refers to how appropriate are the inferences drawn
from test scores or results of other selection procedures.
Under the Guidelines, there are three concepts that can be used
to validate a selection procedure: (1) criterion-related validity,
(2) content validity, and (3) construct validity. These concepts reflect
difference approaches to demonstrating the job relatedness of selection
procedures but may be interrelated in actual application. Again, each
approach, in a fundamental sense, requires a definition of what is to
be inferred from the scores and supporting data to show that there is
an acceptable basis for such inferences. (Note again that validity is
itself inferred, not measured.)
Criterion-related validity involves (1) the administration of some
assessment (selection) procedure, for example, an aptitude test, to a
group of people; (2) the collection of criterion data (e.g., performance)
on that same group of people; and (3) correlating the assessment procedure
and the criterion. The stronger the correlation, the more valid the
assessment procedure for that criterion is said to be. It is important
to note that one does not establish the validity of an assessment procedure
alone; rather, one establishes the validity of an assessment procedure
for a particular criterion or set of criteria. Thus a selection. procedure
is never valid per se. It must always be evaluated in the setting in
which it Is used.
There are two kinds of criterion-related validity: concurrent,
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
when the predictor and criterion data are collected at the same time,
and predictive, when the criterion data are collected at some later
point in time.
Content validity is accomplished through judgments rather than
through the formal process of correlating assessments with criteria.
The judgment involves estimating the relevance of a selection procedure
for a specific criterion or set of criteria without actually collecting
the criterion data. The administration of a typing test as a selection
procedure for hiring typists is an example of an assessment procedure
judged to have content validity. When the assessment procedure is an
actual sample of the criterion, the procedure will have a higher
probability of being judged to have content validity.
Construct validity refers to underlying characteristics of the job
performer, such as verbal ability or achievement motivation, of the kind
often measured by psychological tests. For construct validity to apply,
the particular theoretical construct must be well defined, the selection
procedure must be well established as a measure of the construct, and
an important component of a job behavior must involve the construct.
Establishing this type of validity requires rational inference from a
body of research involving the construct, usually a sizeable body of
research of a programmatic nature. For instance, a particular measure
of numerical ability might be shown to have a close relationship with
other measures of numerical ability and to be less closely related to
measures of other mental abilities. In addition, however, the relevance
of the construct, say numerical ability, to the work itself must be
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
demonstrated, and it is at this point that practical difficulties arise
because of the non-observable nature of the construct.
Construct validity, like content validity and, most often,
criterion-related validity, is, of course, a function of a thorough job
analysis.
Validation has become highly technical and complex, yet is
constantly changing as a set of concepts in industrial psychology.
However, a degree in industrial psychology is not necessarily a
prerequisite to conducting validity studies, and personnel specialists
and others without this background can do much of the work involved
themselves. In large organizations, assistance with the statistical
analyses required in validation research frequently can be obtained
from the company's computer staff.
Under the Uniform Guidelines, validation is legally required only
in situations where it has been shown that the selection process has
an adverse impact. A strong case can be made, however, that all
selection procedures used for employment decisions be validated by
whatever method is most appropriate in terms of the types of jobs and
number of employees involved. Thus, whether there is adverse impact or
not, an employer should determine whether any selection procedure
is job related; otherwise, there is little if any justification for
using the procedure. Random selection, frequently advocated by some,
may very well be as effective as unvalidated selection procedures.
Both of these approaches, however, involve costs in terms of diminished
employee effectiveness and other detrimental effects that can be
avoided with the use of validated selection procedures.
-3-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 LEGAL Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 PERSONNEL
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES
ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCDEDURES
Background
The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures are a set of
federal regulations that govern the use of tests and other selection
procedures used by private employers, contractors under federally funded
contracts, employment agencies, certain state and local governments, and
executive agencies of federal government, including the Central Intelligence
Agency. The Uniform Guidelines apply to any selection procedure used as
a basis for any "employment decision" such as hiring, promotion, demotion
and retention and require an employer to maintain records that disclose
the "impact" that its tests and other selection procedures have upon
employment opportunities of persons by race, sex, and ethnic groups.
The records required are based upon the "total selection process"
for a particular job or job category, that is, the "bottom line". When
the information suffices, an inference is drawn as to "adverse impact,"
which the Uniform Guidelines define as "a substantially different:rate
of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions which
works to the disadvantage of members of a racial, sex, or ethnic group."
The rule of thumb adopted by the Uniform Guidelines for this purpose is
the "four-fifths or 80% rule," which means that, if the selection rate for
one group is less than four-fifths or 80% of that for another group?
- l -
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
adverse impact is inferred.
If the records show that the total selection process for a job or
job category does not support an inference of adverse impact, the employer
usually need do nothing more. If the records do support an inference of
adverse impact, the total selection process for the job or job category
concerned must be "evaluated" to identify which individual procedure
(e.g., test, interview, etc.) is causing the adverse impact. Once the
procedure is identified, the Uniform Guidelines allow the employer
essentially three options: (1) eliminate it, (2) modify it to lessen
the adverse impact, or (3) justify its use as a "business necessity".
This last option involves "validation," which is the demonstration of
the relation between performance on a selection procedure and performance
on the job.
Implementation
Implementation of the Uniform Guidelines into Agency personnel
selection procedures will be accomplished in two "phases". Implementation
of Phase I will begin on 1 April 1980 and will focus on hires and
promotions, selection procedures for which are clearly identified in
the Uniform Guidelines as employment decisions. Phase II is scheduled
to commence by FY 82. During this phase the Agency will make determinations
as to, among other things, other selection procedures used as a basis far"
employment decisions, alternative selection procedures, testing policy,
and job analysis. Agency employees will be informed of Agency policy
as implementation progresses.
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Responsibilities and Functions
The Director of Personnel will be responsible for the recording
of applicant flow data for all clericals and of data on applicants
rejected for medical and security reasons.
In the Directorate of Operations, the Career Management Staff
will record applicant flow data for professionals and technicals other
than Career Trainees.
The Career Trainee Program, and, in the DCI area and Directorates
other than the Directorate of Operations, each Office level component,
will record applicant flow data for all other professionals and technicals.
Promotion data by race and sex will be recorded by the appropriate
Career Service or component.
Components will forward applicant flow and promotion data monthly
to the Directorate level for consolidation.
Directorate& and offices in the DCI area will forward consolidated.
applicant flow and promotion data, including copies of monthly component
data, quarterly to the Office of EEO and Office of Personnel.
The Director of Equal Employment Opportunity will be responsible for:
(1) providing forms, instructions, and guidance to
components for the recording of applicant flow
and promotion data;
(2) responding to inquiries regarding the collection
and submission of applicant flow and promotion data;
(3) determining whether there may be adverse impact for
a particular job or job category; and
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
(4) if adverse impact exists, determining at his discretion,
subsequent actions to be taken, which may include:
(a) appointment of an ED Specialist as an investigator
to evaluate the total selection process for the
job or job category concerned; and
(b) attempting resolution of the problems causing the
adverse impact.
The Deputy Director for Central Intelligence will make the final
decision regarding resolution of adverse impact problems and direct action
to be taken by the component concerned, in those cases brought to his
attention for appeal.
(SEE ALTERNATIVE PAGE 4 FOLLOWING)
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
(4) if adverse impact exists, determining at his discretion,
subsequent actions to be taken, which may include:
(a) appointment of an EO Specialist as an investigator
to evaluate the total selection process for the job
or job category concerned;
(b) attempting informal resolution of the adverse
impact; and
(c) submission of cases that cannot be resolved informally
to the Adverse Impact Review Board.
The Adverse Impact Review Board, comprised of the General Counsel,
Comptroller, and Inspector General, will review cases submitted by the
Director of Equal Employment Opportunity and recommend to the DDCI which
of the options (e.g., elimination, modification or justification as
business necessity) ought to be taken by the component concerned. The
Director of Personnel and Chief, Psychological Services-Staff will serve
as advisors to the Board.
The Deputy Director for Central Intelligence will make the final
decision regarding action to be taken by the component concerned,
considering the recommendation of the Adverse Impact Review Board.
Approved For Release 20%1/_08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
C)
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
SELF-IDENTIFICATION SHEET
General Instructions
The Uniform Guidelines on Em to ee Selection Procedures require
the co ection o race, sex, and ethnic group information from those
persons seeking employment with the Central Intelligence Agency and
other Federal agencies. This information will be used for research
and statistical purposes only to help ensure that the personnel
practices of CIA are fair to all applicants. Your responses are
voluntary and non-completion of this form will not affect your
employment opportunities.
2.
Year of birth
ial Security Number
S
3.
oc
4.
Sex Male
Female
5.
Ethnicity and Race (self-identify yourself as one of the following:)
Hispanic (A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central
or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, re-
gardless of race.)
Black (A person having origins in any of the black racial
groups of Africa.)
Asian or Pacific Islander (A person having origins in any of
the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the
Indian sub-continent, or the Pacific Islands. This area
includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea., the
Philippine Islands, and Samoa.)
American Indian or Alaskan Native (A person having origins
in any of the original peoples of North America, and who
maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation
or community recognition.)
White (A person having origins in any of the original peoples
of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.)
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300050001-8
 Y Apl*oved Fbr Relelse 200'08/14 :ICIA-RD'89-01114R000100050001-8 I I I t
CottfMEti ox y1RECTo1;AT~'
UNIFORM SELDGTION PROCEDURES
SUMMARY REPORT
NEW HIRES
PkZ%IO9 Comm-.) nom. '1'4
WN
t7E
$'tna1G /~{!.a-'I' ": /VA'-tVl
` fJJJC+~
/~.?.
IN+~
~7'N
ti%
~IiJ. C'al?J
1~tGVPt+T1nrJ~~L
4
STPIvS
`i"orA L
"'.
M
_
_?... -....-
i I ~= rat -~ ~-
r E
~>
M
r
11 Jf
..r.w-
r.....
~ I
.