IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/amstat/v68y2014i3p146-157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New Statistical Tests for Detecting Disparate Impact Arising From Two-Stage Selection Processes

Author

Listed:
  • Weiwen Miao
  • Joseph L. Gastwirth

Abstract

Statistical evidence of a significant difference between the performance of a protected group and the majority on a preemployment exam is often critical when a court decides whether the exam has a disparate impact, that is, whether the exam has a disproportionate adverse impact on minority candidates. In many cases, the hiring or promotion process consists of two steps. Since disparate impact can occur at each step, parties submitting evidence may use statistical tests at each stage without accounting for a potential multiple comparisons problem. Because different courts have focused on data concerning either one or the other step or a composite of both, they have reached opposite conclusions when faced with similar data. After illustrating the issues, two two-step tests are recommended to alleviate the problem. The large sample properties of these tests are obtained. A simulation study shows that in most situations, the new tests have higher power than the ones in current use.

Suggested Citation

  • Weiwen Miao & Joseph L. Gastwirth, 2014. "New Statistical Tests for Detecting Disparate Impact Arising From Two-Stage Selection Processes," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 68(3), pages 146-157, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:68:y:2014:i:3:p:146-157
    DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2014.917054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00031305.2014.917054
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00031305.2014.917054?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:amstat:v:68:y:2014:i:3:p:146-157. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UTAS20 .

    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.