The following minimum standards, as applicable, should be met in
conducting a validity study. Nothing in these guidelines is intended to
preclude the development and use of other professionally acceptable
techniques with respect to validation of selection procedures. Where it
is not technically feasible for a user to conduct a validity study, the
user has the obligation otherwise to comply with these guidelines. See
sections 6 and 7 of this part.
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) of this section with respect to criterion-related validity. Any
method of job analysis may be used if it provides the information
required for the specific validation strategy used.
B. Technical standards for criterion-related validity studies--(1)
Technical feasibility. Users choosing to validate a selection procedure
by a criterion-related validity strategy should determine whether it is
technically feasible (as defined in section 16) to conduct such a study
in the particular employment 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 appropriate, jobs with substantially the
same major work behaviors may be grouped together for validity studies,
in order to obtain an adequate sample. These guidelines do not require a
user to hire or promote persons for the purpose of making it possible to
conduct a criterion-related study.
(2) Analysis of the job. There should 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. These measures or
criteria are relevant to the extent that they represent critical or
important job duties, work behaviors or work outcomes as developed from
the review of job information. The possibility of bias should be
considered both in selection of the criterion 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 methods
for gathering data need to be examined for freedom from factors which
would unfairly alter scores of members of any group. The relevance of
criteria and their freedom from bias are of particular concern when
there are significant differences in measures of job performance for
different groups.
(3) Criterion measures. Proper safeguards should be taken to insure
that
scores on selection procedures do not enter into any judgments of
employee adequacy that are to be used as criterion measures. Whatever
criteria are used should represent important or critical work
behavior(s) or work outcomes. Certain criteria may be used without a
full job analysis if the user can show the importance of the criteria to
the particular employment context. These criteria include but are not
limited to production rate, error rate, tardiness, absenteeism, and
length of service. A standardized rating of overall work performance may
be used where a study of the job shows that it is an appropriate
criterion. Where performance in training is used as a criterion, success
in training should be properly measured and the relevance of the
training should be shown either through a comparsion of the content of
the training program with the critical or important work behavior(s) of
the job(s), or through a demonstration of the relationship between
measures of performance in training and measures of job performance.
Measures of relative success in training include but are not limited to
instructor evaluations, performance samples, or tests. Criterion
measures consisting of paper and pencil tests will be closely reviewed
for job relevance.
(4) Representativeness of the sample. Whether the study is
predictive or concurrent, the sample subjects should insofar as feasible
be representative of the candidates normally available in the relevant
labor market for the job or group of jobs in question, and should
insofar as feasible include the races, sexes, and ethnic groups normally
available in the relevant job market. In determining the
representativeness of the sample in a concurrent validity study, the
user should take into account the extent to which the specific
knowledges or skills which are the primary focus of the test are those
which employees learn on the job.
Where samples are combined or compared, attention should be given to see
that such samples are comparable in terms of the actual job they
perform, the length of time on the job where time on the job is likely
to affect performance, and other relevant factors likely to affect
validity differences; or that these factors are included in the design
of the study and their effects identified.
(5) Statistical relationships. The degree of relationship between
selection procedure scores and criterion measures should be examined and
computed, using professionally acceptable statistical procedures.
Generally, a selection procedure is considered related to the criterion,
for the purposes of these guidelines, when the relationship between
performance on the procedure and performance on the criterion 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 selection procedure and
job performance should not necessarily discourage other investigations
of the validity of that selection procedure.
(6) Operational use of selection procedures. Users should evaluate
each selection procedure to assure that it is appropriate for
operational use, including establishment of cutoff scores or rank
ordering. Generally, if other factors reman the same, the greater the
magnitude of the relationship (e.g., correlation coefficent) between
performance on a selection procedure and one or more criteria of
performance on the job, and the greater the importance and number of
aspects of job performance covered by the criteria, the more likely it
is that the procedure will be appropriate for use. Reliance upon a
selection procedure which is significantly related to a criterion
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 coefficients
applicable to all employment situations. In determining whether a
selection procedure is appropriate for operational use the following
considerations should also be taken into account: The degree of adverse
impact of the procedure, the availability of other selection procedures
of greater or substantially equal validity.
(7) Overstatement of validity findings. Users should avoid reliance
upon techniques which tend to overestimate validity findings as a result
of capitalization on chance unless an appropriate safeguard is taken.
Reliance upon a few selection procedures or criteria of successful job
performance when many selection 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 procedures is a developing concept. In addition, fairness
studies generally require substantial numbers of employees in the job or
group of jobs being studied. For these reasons, the Federal enforcement
agencies 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 persons in a job class, or test developers;
and that small users utilizing their own selection procedures will
generally not be obligated to conduct such studies because it will be
technically infeasible for them to do so.
(a) Unfairness defined. When members of one race, sex, or ethnic
group characteristically obtain lower scores on a selection procedure
than members of another group, and the differences in scores are not
reflected in differences in a measure of job performance, use of the
selection procedure may unfairly deny opportunities to members of the
group that obtains the lower scores.
(b) Investigation of fairness. Where a selection procedure results
in an adverse impact on a race, sex, or ethnic group identified in
accordance with the classifications set forth in section 4 of this part
and that group is a significant factor in the relevant labor market, the
user generally should investigate the possible existence of unfairness
for that group if it is technically feasible to do so. The greater the
severity of the adverse impact on a group, the greater the need to
investigate the possible existence of unfairness. Where the weight of
evidence from other studies shows that the selection 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 procedure at
issue.
(c) General considerations in fairness investigations. Users
conducting a study of fairness should review the A.P.A. Standards
regarding investigation of possible bias in testing. An investigation 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. Fairness of a selection procedure cannot
necessarily be specified in advance without investigating these factors.
Investigation of fairness of a selection procedure in samples where the
range of scores on selection procedures or criterion measures is
severely restricted for any subgroup sample (as compared to other
subgroup samples) may produce misleading evidence of unfairness. 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 unfairness 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 with appropriate revisions in its use to assure
compatibility between the probability of successful job performance and
the probability of being selected.
(e) Technical feasibility of fairness studies. In addition to the
general conditions needed for technical feasibility for the conduct of a
criterion-related study (see section 16, below) an investigation of
fairness requires the following:
(1) An adequate sample of persons in each group available for the
study to achieve findings of statistical significance. 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 conduct a study
of fairness; but the user has the obligation otherwise to comply with
these guidelines.
(2) 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 procedures when fairness studies not
feasible. If a study of fairness should otherwise be performed, but is
not technically feasible, a selection procedure may be used which has
otherwise met the validity standards of these guidelines, unless the
technical infeasibility resulted from discriminatory employment
practices which are demonstrated by facts other than past failure to
conform with requirements for validation of selection procedures.
However, when it becomes technically feasible for the user to perform a
study of fairness 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 procedure by a content validity strategy should determine
whether it is appropriate to conduct such a study in the particular
employment context. A selection procedure can be supported by a content
validity strategy to the extent that it is a representative sample of
the content of the job. Selection procedures which purport to measure
knowledges, skills, or abilities may in certain circumstances be
justified by content validity, although they may not be representative
samples, if the knowledge, skill, or ability measured by the selection
procedure can be operationally defined as provided in paragraph 14C(4)
of this section, and if that knowledge, skill, or ability is a necessary
prerequisite to successful job performance.
A selection procedure based upon inferences about mental processes
cannot be supported solely or primarily on the basis of content
validity. Thus, a content strategy is not appropriate 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 successful performance and their relative importance 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 procedures. 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 content validity. To demonstrate the
content validity of a selection procedure, a user should show that the
behavior(s) demonstrated in the selection procedure are a representative
sample of the behavior(s) of the job in question or that the selection
procedure provides a representative sample of the work product of the
job. In the case of a selection procedure measuring a knowledge, skill,
or ability, the knowledge, skill, or ability being measured should be
operationally defined. In the case of a selection procedure measuring a
knowledge, the knowledge being measured should be operationally defined
as that body of learned information 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 observable aspects of work behavior
of the job. For any selection procedure measuring a knowledge, skill, or
ability the user should show that (a) the selection procedure measures
and is a representative sample of that knowledge, skill, or ability; and
(b) that knowledge, skill, or ability is used in and is a necessary
prerequisite to performance 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
behavior, or its product should closely approximate an observable work
product. 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 stronger is the
basis for showing content validity. As the content of the selection
procedure less resembles a work behavior, or the setting and manner of
the administration of the selection procedure less resemble the work
situation, or the result less resembles a work product, the less likely
the selection procedure is to be content valid, and the greater the need
for other evidence of validity.
(5) Reliability. The reliability of selection procedures justified
on the basis of content validity should be a matter of concern to the
user. Whenever it is feasible, appropriate statistical estimates should
be made of the reliability of the selection procedure.
(6) Prior training or experience. A requirement for or evaluation of
specific prior training or experience based on content validity,
including a specification of level or amount of training or experience,
should be justified on the basis of the relationship between the content
of the training or experience and the content of the job for which the
training or experience is to be required or evaluated. The critical
consideration is the resemblance between 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, whether or not there is close resemblance between
the experience or training as a whole and the job as a whole.
(7) Content validity of training success. Where a measure of success
in a training program is used as a selection procedure and the content
of a training program is justified on the basis of content validity, the
use should be justified on the relationship between the content of the
training program and the content of the job.
(8) Operational use. A selection procedure which is supported on the
basis of content validity may be used for a job if it represents a
critical work behavior (i.e., a behavior which is necessary for
performance of the job) or work behaviors which constitute most of the
important parts of the job.
(9) Ranking based on content validity studies. If a user can show,
by a job analysis or otherwise, that a higher score on a content valid
selection procedure is likely to result in better job performance, the
results may be used to rank persons who score above minimum levels.
Where a selection procedure supported solely or primarily by content
validity is used to rank job candidates, the selection procedure should
measure those aspects of performance which differentiate among levels of
job performance.
D. Technical standards for construct validity studies--(1)
Appropriateness of construct validity studies. Construct validity is a
more complex strategy than either criterion-related or content validity.
Construct validation is a relatively new and developing procedure in the
employment field, and there is at present a lack of substantial
literature extending the concept to employment practices. The user
should be aware that the effort to obtain sufficient empirical support
for construct validity is both an extensive and arduous effort involving
a series of research studies, which include criterion related
validity studies and which may include content validity studies. Users
choosing to justify use of a selection procedure by this strategy should
therefore take particular care to assure that the validity study meets
the standards set forth below.
(2) Job analysis for construct validity studies. There should be a
job analysis. This job analysis should show the work behavior(s)
required for successful performance of the job, or the groups of jobs
being studied, the critical or important work behavior(s) in the job or
group of jobs being studied, and an identification of the construct(s)
believed to underlie successful performance of these critical or
important work behaviors in the job or jobs in question. Each construct
should be named and defined, so as to distinguish it from other
constructs. If a group of jobs is being studied the jobs should have in
common one or more critical or important work behav- iors at a
comparable level of complexity.
(3) Relationship to the job. A selection procedure should then be
identified or developed which measures the construct identified in
accord with subparagraph (2) of this section. 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
performance of critical or important work behavior(s). The relationship
between the construct as measured by the selection procedure and the
related work behavior(s) should be supported by empirical evidence from
one or more criterion-related studies involving the job or jobs in
question which satisfy the provisions of paragraph 14B of this section.
(4) Use of construct validity study without new criterion-related
evidence--(a) Standards for use. Until such time as professional
literature provides more guidance on the use of construct validity in
employment situations, the Federal agencies will accept a claim of
construct validity without a criterion-related study which satisfies
paragraph 14B of this section only when the selection procedure has been
used elsewhere in a situation in which a criterion-related study has
been conducted and the use of a criterion-related 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
satisfies subparagraphs 14B (2) and (3) of this section for those jobs
with criterion-related validity evidence for those jobs, the selection
procedure may be used for all the jobs to which the study pertains. If
construct validity is to be generalized to other jobs or groups of jobs
not in the group studied, the Federal enforcement agencies will expect
at a minimum additional empirical research evidence meeting the
standards of subparagraphs section 14B (2) and (3) of this section 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
neither the observed work behavior(s) in each of the jobs nor the
observed work product(s) in each of the jobs are the same, the Federal
enforcement agencies will presume that the work behavior(s) in each job
are different. If the work behaviors are not observable, then 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.
