LEGAL CONCERNS IN THE USE OF WEIGHTED APPLICATIONS

USE OF THE STANDARD WEIGHTED APPLICATION PROCEDURE RELIES ON STRICTLY EMPIRICALLY DERIVED KEYS FOR VALIDITY. WHILE IT IS GENERALLY VALID IN TERMS OF THE CORRELATION BETWEEN SCORE ON THE APPLICATION AND POSITION ON THE CRITERION, THE EMPIRICAL SCHEME MAY WEIGHT ITEMS THAT CANNOT BE SHOWN TO BE RELEVA...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Personnel psychology 1977-07, Vol.30 (2), p.159-166
Main Authors: PACE, LARRY A., SCHOENFELDT, LYLE F.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Affirmative action
Applications
Procedures
Weighted
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 166
container_issue 2
container_start_page 159
container_title Personnel psychology
container_volume 30
creator PACE, LARRY A.
SCHOENFELDT, LYLE F.
description USE OF THE STANDARD WEIGHTED APPLICATION PROCEDURE RELIES ON STRICTLY EMPIRICALLY DERIVED KEYS FOR VALIDITY. WHILE IT IS GENERALLY VALID IN TERMS OF THE CORRELATION BETWEEN SCORE ON THE APPLICATION AND POSITION ON THE CRITERION, THE EMPIRICAL SCHEME MAY WEIGHT ITEMS THAT CANNOT BE SHOWN TO BE RELEVANT TO THE JOB FOR WHICH THEY PREDICT. TO THE EXTENT THAT EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS ARE BASED ON THE NON JOB RELEVANT WEIGHTED APPLICATIONS, SUCH DECISIONS MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. ALTERNATIVE METHODS INCORPORATING JOB RELEVANCE INTO THE WEIGHTING PROCEDURE VIA JOB ANALYSIS INJECT THE 'HAND OF REASON' INTO THIS PROCESS. SUCH RATIONAL EMPIRICAL APPROACHES ENSURE JOB RELATEDNESS AS WELL AS VALIDITY. REFERENCES.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1977.tb02085.x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_istex</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_220133534</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1277419</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-i248t-d735c644958d8e021e809baf24255176204caa59a4408602282620884ba0a293</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1jl9rwjAUxcPYYM7tOwT33O7mJmnSR6mxLZRWbIePIWoF3R9dW8F9-wUce9t5uXDuj3MOIRMGIfN6OYRMCRFEUnkjVioc1oCgZXi5IaO_1y0ZAXAWSI3RPXno-wN4odAjgoVJpwVNqjIxy7KmeUmbzNDX2tBqTlcmT7PGzOh0sSjyZNrkVVk_krude-_bp987Js3cNEkWFFXqmSLY--Qh2CouN5EQsdRb3QKyVkO8djsUKCVTEYLYOCdjJwToCBD9OD9di7UDhzEfk8k19tQdv85tP9jD8dx9-kaLCIxzyYWHnv-DGAchZYwMPRVcqX0_tBd76vYfrvu2rnuzkeJK2lWZ2nlWNHo2K-2S_wDSG1vi</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1304559212</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>LEGAL CONCERNS IN THE USE OF WEIGHTED APPLICATIONS</title><source>Business Source Ultimate</source><source>Wiley Online Library Psychology Backfiles</source><creator>PACE, LARRY A. ; SCHOENFELDT, LYLE F.</creator><creatorcontrib>PACE, LARRY A. ; SCHOENFELDT, LYLE F.</creatorcontrib><description>USE OF THE STANDARD WEIGHTED APPLICATION PROCEDURE RELIES ON STRICTLY EMPIRICALLY DERIVED KEYS FOR VALIDITY. WHILE IT IS GENERALLY VALID IN TERMS OF THE CORRELATION BETWEEN SCORE ON THE APPLICATION AND POSITION ON THE CRITERION, THE EMPIRICAL SCHEME MAY WEIGHT ITEMS THAT CANNOT BE SHOWN TO BE RELEVANT TO THE JOB FOR WHICH THEY PREDICT. TO THE EXTENT THAT EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS ARE BASED ON THE NON JOB RELEVANT WEIGHTED APPLICATIONS, SUCH DECISIONS MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. ALTERNATIVE METHODS INCORPORATING JOB RELEVANCE INTO THE WEIGHTING PROCEDURE VIA JOB ANALYSIS INJECT THE 'HAND OF REASON' INTO THIS PROCESS. SUCH RATIONAL EMPIRICAL APPROACHES ENSURE JOB RELATEDNESS AS WELL AS VALIDITY. REFERENCES.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0031-5826</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1744-6570</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1977.tb02085.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Affirmative action ; Applications ; Procedures ; Weighted</subject><ispartof>Personnel psychology, 1977-07, Vol.30 (2), p.159-166</ispartof><rights>Copyright Personnel Psychology, Inc. SUMMER 1977</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>PACE, LARRY A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCHOENFELDT, LYLE F.</creatorcontrib><title>LEGAL CONCERNS IN THE USE OF WEIGHTED APPLICATIONS</title><title>Personnel psychology</title><description>USE OF THE STANDARD WEIGHTED APPLICATION PROCEDURE RELIES ON STRICTLY EMPIRICALLY DERIVED KEYS FOR VALIDITY. WHILE IT IS GENERALLY VALID IN TERMS OF THE CORRELATION BETWEEN SCORE ON THE APPLICATION AND POSITION ON THE CRITERION, THE EMPIRICAL SCHEME MAY WEIGHT ITEMS THAT CANNOT BE SHOWN TO BE RELEVANT TO THE JOB FOR WHICH THEY PREDICT. TO THE EXTENT THAT EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS ARE BASED ON THE NON JOB RELEVANT WEIGHTED APPLICATIONS, SUCH DECISIONS MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. ALTERNATIVE METHODS INCORPORATING JOB RELEVANCE INTO THE WEIGHTING PROCEDURE VIA JOB ANALYSIS INJECT THE 'HAND OF REASON' INTO THIS PROCESS. SUCH RATIONAL EMPIRICAL APPROACHES ENSURE JOB RELATEDNESS AS WELL AS VALIDITY. REFERENCES.</description><subject>Affirmative action</subject><subject>Applications</subject><subject>Procedures</subject><subject>Weighted</subject><issn>0031-5826</issn><issn>1744-6570</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1977</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1jl9rwjAUxcPYYM7tOwT33O7mJmnSR6mxLZRWbIePIWoF3R9dW8F9-wUce9t5uXDuj3MOIRMGIfN6OYRMCRFEUnkjVioc1oCgZXi5IaO_1y0ZAXAWSI3RPXno-wN4odAjgoVJpwVNqjIxy7KmeUmbzNDX2tBqTlcmT7PGzOh0sSjyZNrkVVk_krude-_bp987Js3cNEkWFFXqmSLY--Qh2CouN5EQsdRb3QKyVkO8djsUKCVTEYLYOCdjJwToCBD9OD9di7UDhzEfk8k19tQdv85tP9jD8dx9-kaLCIxzyYWHnv-DGAchZYwMPRVcqX0_tBd76vYfrvu2rnuzkeJK2lWZ2nlWNHo2K-2S_wDSG1vi</recordid><startdate>19770701</startdate><enddate>19770701</enddate><creator>PACE, LARRY A.</creator><creator>SCHOENFELDT, LYLE F.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Personnel Psychology, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>GHXMH</scope><scope>GPCCI</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>4T-</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19770701</creationdate><title>LEGAL CONCERNS IN THE USE OF WEIGHTED APPLICATIONS</title><author>PACE, LARRY A. ; SCHOENFELDT, LYLE F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-i248t-d735c644958d8e021e809baf24255176204caa59a4408602282620884ba0a293</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1977</creationdate><topic>Affirmative action</topic><topic>Applications</topic><topic>Procedures</topic><topic>Weighted</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>PACE, LARRY A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCHOENFELDT, LYLE F.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 09</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 10</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><jtitle>Personnel psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>PACE, LARRY A.</au><au>SCHOENFELDT, LYLE F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>LEGAL CONCERNS IN THE USE OF WEIGHTED APPLICATIONS</atitle><jtitle>Personnel psychology</jtitle><date>1977-07-01</date><risdate>1977</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>159</spage><epage>166</epage><pages>159-166</pages><issn>0031-5826</issn><eissn>1744-6570</eissn><abstract>USE OF THE STANDARD WEIGHTED APPLICATION PROCEDURE RELIES ON STRICTLY EMPIRICALLY DERIVED KEYS FOR VALIDITY. WHILE IT IS GENERALLY VALID IN TERMS OF THE CORRELATION BETWEEN SCORE ON THE APPLICATION AND POSITION ON THE CRITERION, THE EMPIRICAL SCHEME MAY WEIGHT ITEMS THAT CANNOT BE SHOWN TO BE RELEVANT TO THE JOB FOR WHICH THEY PREDICT. TO THE EXTENT THAT EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS ARE BASED ON THE NON JOB RELEVANT WEIGHTED APPLICATIONS, SUCH DECISIONS MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. ALTERNATIVE METHODS INCORPORATING JOB RELEVANCE INTO THE WEIGHTING PROCEDURE VIA JOB ANALYSIS INJECT THE 'HAND OF REASON' INTO THIS PROCESS. SUCH RATIONAL EMPIRICAL APPROACHES ENSURE JOB RELATEDNESS AS WELL AS VALIDITY. REFERENCES.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1744-6570.1977.tb02085.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0031-5826
ispartof Personnel psychology, 1977-07, Vol.30 (2), p.159-166
issn 0031-5826
1744-6570
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_220133534
source Business Source Ultimate; Wiley Online Library Psychology Backfiles
subjects Affirmative action
Applications
Procedures
Weighted
title LEGAL CONCERNS IN THE USE OF WEIGHTED APPLICATIONS
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T13%3A06%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_istex&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=LEGAL%20CONCERNS%20IN%20THE%20USE%20OF%20WEIGHTED%20APPLICATIONS&rft.jtitle=Personnel%20psychology&rft.au=PACE,%20LARRY%20A.&rft.date=1977-07-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=159&rft.epage=166&rft.pages=159-166&rft.issn=0031-5826&rft.eissn=1744-6570&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1977.tb02085.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_istex%3E1277419%3C/proquest_istex%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-i248t-d735c644958d8e021e809baf24255176204caa59a4408602282620884ba0a293%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1304559212&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true