Psychology 121, Lecture 19

Legal Dimensions of Testing, and the Future

by Hal S. Kopeikin, Ph.D. © 1998

Legal Dimensions of Testing, continued.

EEOC, Adverse Impact, and the 4/5ths rule

A selection rate of any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than 4/5 (80%) of the rate for the group with the highest selection rate will generally be regarded by the federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact...î The full quote is on p. 589, but watch out for the book's misinterpretation of it. Many tests have results where this 80% minimum is not met.

Truth in Testing Laws

First enacted in NY, later in CA.. These laws require testing companies to release validity studies; provide complete explanations of scoring and interpretation; release copies of the test, correct answers, and test-taker's responses upon request. The final provisions is the troublesome one. What about reliability, validity, and costs?

Ironically, the worst misuses of test is typically by well-intentioned insufficiently trained laymen. Overdisclosure may be more of a problem than the opposite.

Some Legal Milestones

Hobson v. Hansen: Group ability tests cannot be used to track students because of adverse impact on minority children.

Larry P.V. Wilson Riles: Judge labels IQ tests racially and culturally biased...not validated for purpose of consigning black children into educationally dead-end, isolated, stigmatizing classes. Prohibited individual IQ testing with black children.

Parents in Action on Special Education v. Hannon: Similar situation to Larry P in Illinois; judge reaches opposite conclusion.

Crawford et al, v. Honig et al. Crawford cannot get IQ testing of mulatto child, sues for equal protection. Larry P is reversed by original judge.

Marshall v. Georgia: rejected the notion that tracking, and using test to do so, is bad for children even if it leads to statistical disparities in placements.

Golden Rule Insurance et al v. Washburn et al: ETS agrees to remove all licensing items upon which blacks and whites differ by more than 15%.

1991 Civil Rights Act: It shall be unlawful employment practice...in connection with... employment or selection...to adjust scores, use different cutoff scores, or otherwise alter the results of employment related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Psychological Testing and the Future-Some Observations and Predictions

1. Tests will continue to reflect the Zeitgeist (spirit of the time) in Psychology (There is a focus on biology and cognition.), albeit with a 10 year lag.

Tests measure what psychologists think is important, thus their focus changes with paradigms.
Tests emphasizing situation-specificity, more narrowly defined traits (narrower bandwidth), neuropsychology and cognitive processes will continue to grow in popularity.
Cost-effectiveness (esp. cost) will become increasingly important in determining test usage. The projectives might be in trouble for this reason.

2. Computers will revolutionize testing.

Computerized administration, scoring, and interpretation will become the norm rather than the exception.
this will reduce costs and controls, leading to more problems and social backlash.

3. In clinical psychology, testing will prosper when it integrates with, and facilitates treatment.

4. Testing is inevitably controversial and will remain so

Tests are used to make decisions, and most decisions are unpopular with someone.
Tests are intrinsically imperfect, and psychologists tend to be quite honest about the shortcomings.
Tests often convey "bad news" and are blamed for the problems they reveal.