Adverse Impact : Pre-Employment Selection

at
Categories
Tags

 

Selection procedures (including pre-employment tests) such as interviews, personality tests, integrity tests, cognitive ability tests, situational judgement tests, and physical tests are all important to organizations in use of selecting the best employees for a job position. However, in using either existing tests or tests provided by a third-party organization, all must ensure that discrimination and adverse impact are not present test outcomes. In other words, are the tests designed in a way that are not discriminating against certain protected populations? Are these tests actually fair, if the results produce employment candidates that exclude females or other protected groups? If an organization finds that their test results disproportionately screen out those belonging to a particular gender, racial, ethnic, disability, or religious group, it is important to re-evaluate and correct.

We need to ensure our understanding of adverse impact and ways in which to prevent unintentional (or intentional) discrimination and biases. It’s in the best interest of people, organizations, and communities to include voice and involvement of all people regardless of race, gender, gender-identity, color, origin, or religion. Pre-employment tests should be accurate and relevant, and continue to be monitored.

Required:
1. Re-review/read adverse impact and pre-employment testing from textbook (Chapters 8 & 9) and video and article links. (Links and powerpoints are provided in the word document)

2. Define Adverse Impact (in your own words from how it is defined). Cite sources. Be thorough, substantive–explain in depth with an example.
3. Why does it matter for organizations to avoid adverse impact in pre-employment selection?
4. From the readings, explain an example of where an employer was at fault with their pre-employment tests and adverse impact.
5. Explain the Four-step process to determine adverse impact. Also give a mathematical example to show understanding.

Sample Solution

ncies in other parts of Maryland and a clear expectation of DJS intake officers in other DJS regions, Baltimore’s stakeholders should be concerned about how these procedural differences might work to the disadvantage of young people in Baltimore City as compared to their peers in other parts of the state. To the extent that this step serves as a procedural safeguard between a young person and the doors of secure detention in other regions, it should also be available for the young people of Baltimore City. Additionally, operating according to a principle of presumptive diversion, conducting the DRAI should not be the default for all youth.

Third, stakeholders expressed concern about the availability of programming and skill-building opportunities for youth held in detention, particularly young people who are charged as adults who stay at the facility for long periods of time. As noted above, it is laudable that officials have made changes to realign open bed capacity at the BCJJC to more effectively serve youth charged as adults in the Circuit Court. This move has undoubtedly spared hundreds of Baltimore’s young people from the grave dangers to safety and well-being that young people face when they are incarcerated with adults, including high rates of physical assault, sexual abuse, isolation, and suicide.

There is no question that the BCJJC is the better place to hold young people charged as adults. However, for those youth who stay at the facility for many months and those who will face significant barriers to reentry once released, many stakeholders felt that more could be done in detention to equip those young people with new skills and tools that the can use when they return to the community. There are programs doing this in detention at the present time. For example, Baltimore Youth Arts works with young people in detention to provide mentorship and skill-building

This question has been answered.

Get Answer