A qualitative analysis of personnel selection and legal experts’ perspectives on adverse impact measures

Adverse impact analysis is typically covered in the training of industrial-organizational psychologists, but it often focuses solely on statistical measures (e.g., 4/5ths rule and ZD test), without incorporating the broader contextual factors of importance that impact how these statistics are used. To help understand this problem, the present paper systematically investigates how adverse impact measures are conducted and communicated in practice, considering the many factors impacting these analyses. Through our qualitative study, we interviewed 31 personnel selection and legal experts to understand how they select and apply adverse impact measures, and how they communicate adverse impact results to a wide range of relevant stakeholders. Study results provide rich expert insights on the most generally recommended adverse impact measures, important situational and contextual factors, the measures that are most compelling when supporting versus defending adverse impact claims, the easiest versus most difficult adverse impact measures to communicate to stakeholders, and the adverse impact measures they viewed as ideal. The insights that experts shared coalesced around a set of important themes that we discuss in depth: i.e., statistical analyses, data, organization-centered factors, and contextual factors. We conclude by offering implications of the work that provide novel directions for future adverse impact analysis that can guide and help close gaps found in research, practice, and training.

See the full article at Journal of Business and Psychology