IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v4y2011i04p566-570_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Encouraging Debate on the Uniform Guidelines and the Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination

Author

Listed:
  • McDaniel, Michael A.
  • Kepes, Sven
  • Banks, George C.

Abstract

This response summarizes commentaries on the M. A. McDaniel, S. Kepes, and G. C. Banks (2011) article, which argued that the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures are a detriment to the field of personnel selection. Several themes were present in the commentaries. No compelling arguments were presented to dispute the assertion that mean racial differences in job-related attributes will be with us for a long time. However, compelling arguments were made that the disparate impact theory of discrimination is a more central issue for personnel selection than the Uniform Guidelines. Similarly, arguments were presented that the assessment of adverse impact is problematic and that expert witness testimony needs improvement. Areas in need of further investigation were also identified. Finally, the role of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) in guiding regulatory, legislative, and court actions was considered.

Suggested Citation

  • McDaniel, Michael A. & Kepes, Sven & Banks, George C., 2011. "Encouraging Debate on the Uniform Guidelines and the Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 566-570, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:4:y:2011:i:04:p:566-570_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S175494260000465X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:4:y:2011:i:04:p:566-570_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.