Ψlogical
Testing

Chapter 20
Testing & the Law

🛀 House Cleaning 🚿

Lectures:

• Belugas present
  Tuesday!! 🐳
  • schedule available here
  • rubric available here
• Final merely Exam #3
  • WILL NOT be 5/23
• Project rubric

🔭🌠ASTEROID YR4 PANIC METER!!!🌌💥

Forensic Psychology

“Laws”¹ governing use of tests

• Interstate commerce – because states can make their own laws, the federal government regulates business activity between 2 (or more) states
  • many, many activities can be categorized as interstate commerce

• Withhold spending – refuse to disburse grant or contract 💵
• EEOC – established to enforce Title VII of the 1964 CRA (regulates business activities including employee & pre-employment testing)

1. actually government actions or assumed authority to regulate activity

Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures

A document published by the EEOC that defines fair employee–selection procedures across race, color, gender, national origin & religion (Commission et al., 1978)

Selection procedures that result in one group being selected at a rate of less than 80% other groups are demonstrating adverse impact

• aka \(\frac{4}{5}\)’s rule

If an employer hires 75% of white applicants but only 30% of black applicants, that is considered unfair (and exhibiting adverse impact)

• would need to hire (at least) 60% black applicants to NOT exhibit adverse impact

Sexual Harassment

…also “regulated” by EEOC (as well as Department of Justice, Department of Labor & Office of Civil Rights)

Two distinct manifestations recognized:

Quid pro quo

Latin phrase meaning, “this for that” and applying to situations where behavior is performed in exchange for some outcome (e.g., not getting fired)

Hostile work environment

Newer addition wherein the mere exposure to unpleasant environments can be considered harrassment (the complaintant typically needs to express discomfort)

Truth in testing laws

New York Truth in Testing Law originally targetted ETS, but has since been expanded

Requires companies to disclose validity studies, be transparent about score meaning and calculation, & provide questions and answers upon test–taker request

Federal initiatives in Education

No Child Left Behind Act (2001), 2001) intended to improve student performance (primary and secondary schools) through accountability

• testing was a major component of accountability
• poorly performing schools (on tests) would lose funding or face other negative consequences

• led to accusations of “teaching–to–the–test” as instructors’ livelihoods tied to test results
• replaced by the Every Student Succeeds act in 2015 (shifts responsibility to states)

Common Core

Common Core State Standards Initiative (2009) outlined what students should know in language and math at the end of each grade (K–12)

• most, but not all, states participated (Minnesota adopted half of the standards)
• just like the NCLB, replaced with Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015

• one shared test planned to assess progress, but never accomplished
• different states ended up taking different components (some used/retained, others not)

Major lawsuits (I)

Essentially asking courts to make a fair judgement about an issue

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – schools must provide nonsegregated facilities for African American and white students

• Hobson v. Hansen (1967) 1^st to focus on test validity
  • standardized test used to place students into different learning tracks
  • not equal placement of students into higher tracks (aimed at more prestigious outcomes)

Major lawsuits (II)

• Larry p. V. Riles (1979) – use of IQ tests have disproportionate effect on Black children and violate several laws
  • used to place students into EMR¹ classes
  • test use discontinued (in California)

• Parents in Action on Special Education v. Hannon (1980) similar complaint but different outcome
  • Illinois judge did not believe tests were biased
  • WISC, WISC-R & Stanford–Binet

1. educable mentally retarded – the textbook repeatedly uses this & similar acronyms

Major lawsuits (III)

• Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) – nontraditional student applied to medical school at UC–Davis but was declined even though scored higher than affirmative action applicants
  • California has gone back–and–forth with Affirmative Action since

• Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) – if a pre–employment test is used for selection, it must have a “connection to the job”
  • primary case used to emphasize importance of validity in employee selection

Current outlook

1991 amendment to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbade the use of different standards (e.g., norms) across race, color, gender, national origin & religion

Americans with Disabilities Act (1991) impacted careful wording of items (across constructs) in pre–employment tests

• also more accomodations because of learning (and other) disabilities

According to AOL, the current odds of asteroid impact on 12/22/32 are ___________

• 2.6%
• 3.8%
• 1.2%
• 0.1%

_______________ involves business activity that occurs across states

• interstate commerce
• intrastate commerce
• interstate commons
• intrastate commons

The government agency in charge of enforcing Title VII is the ___________

• EEOC
• OFCCP
• ADA
• CRA

This court case said that validity is important in pre–employment testing

• Griggs v. Duke Power
• Brown v. Board of Education
• Hobson v. Hansen
• Larry P. v. Riles

The legislation providing protections to persons with disabilities is the ________

• ADA
• CRA
• EEOC
• IOC

Assessment groups:

Dingos🦊	Camels🐫	Alpacas🦙	Belugas🐳	Elephants🐘
Sarah M	Sarah J	Vanessa A	Mae F	Hannah T
Raelyn R	Thomas J	Sabina B	Alaina G	William T
Ellen R	Grace K	Nathan B	Payton H	Jennifer T
Rachel S	Grace L	Maritza B	Elly J	Lila W
4/29	5/1	5/6	5/8	5/13

References

2001), U. S. C. (107th 1st session : (2001). No child left behind act of 2001 : Conference report to accompany h.r. 1. Washington :U.S. Government Printing Office.

Brown v. Board of education (Vol. 347). (1954). (Vol. 347).

Commission, E. E. O., Labor, D. of, Justice, D. of, & Commission, C. S. (1978). Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-41/subtitle-B/chapter-60/part-60-3

Griggs v. Duke power co. (Vol. 401). (1971). (Vol. 401).

Hobson v. hansen (Vol. 269). (1967). (Vol. 269).

Larry p. V. riles (Vol. 495). (1979). (Vol. 495).

Parents in action on special education v. hannon (Vol. 506). (1980). (Vol. 506).

Regents of the university of california v. bakke (Vol. 438). (1978). (Vol. 438).