29 Cfr 1607.14

[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 29, Volume 4]

[Revised as of July 1, 2003]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 29CFR1607.14]

[Page 208-214]

TITLE 29--LABOR

COMMISSION

PART 1607--UNIFORM GUIDELINES ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES (1978)--Table

of Contents

Sec. 1607.14 Technical standards for validity studies.

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 above.

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) below 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.

[[Page 209]]

(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

[[Page 210]]

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 situat