Psychologists use assessments to obtain results, which determine recommendations, reports, evaluations, or information of individuals regarding employment, education, volunteering, mental health, or mandated by governing source. Assessments should be an instrument used appropriately in a manner or purpose that is useful. Only assessments that are valid, reliable, and tested for population in question are acceptable forms of assessment techniques. An assessment must use the testers preferred language, competence level, and gain informed consent. Bias occur advertently and inadvertently. Psychometricians define bias as a “factor inherent in a test that systematically prevents accurate, impartial measurement” (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010, p. 199, para 5). Techniques exist to detect and remedy biases in testing. Some tests are inadvertently bias because the research study design was improperly put together. Not testing enough people or having enough diversity within test group can inadvertently lead to bias test results. Estimated true scores transformation is a procedure that can prevent test bias and is just one of the solutions to minimizing bias.
In the case of Albemarle Paper company versus Moody the proper use of assessments was in question. The company administered an assessment meant to predict job performance. The assessment was a general ability assessment. When assessed as a group the results indicated whites scored better than blacks. In the first round of litigation the U.S District Court voted the assessment was job related but and appeals court ruled the assessment discriminatory. To ensure an assessment is not discriminatory a psychologists must develop a test that are appropriate, use updated material, and current knowledge regarding test design to eliminate bias and increase validity and reliability. Another method that can lead to bias assessments is the use of obsolete tests and outdated material. How a test is scored or interpreted reduces or increases the chance for bias. Proper interpretation of data requires psychologists to consider the purpose of the assessment, variables regarding testing such as, situational, cultural, and language differences. Accurately scoring tests results adds to the validity and integrity of the test or company. The design of the research study may have more influence on the success of the test then the test itself. For example, if the number of test takers is less in one group or not a a good representation of the group, “this methodological problem will make it appear as if the test is biased when in fact it may not be. A test may justifiably be deemed biased if some portion of it variance stems from some factors that are irrelevant to performance on the citeriion measure; as a consequence, one group of test takers will systematically perform differently from another” (Cohen & Swedlik, 2010, p. 202, para 2).
The Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody case has set a precedent that test users can challenge the validity of the test and the employer's use of the test. The appeals court ruled that discrimination had occurred even though it was unintentional. Test developers and employers can no longer just look at the criterion for the job but they have to look at society as a whole which can cause controversy among employees, employers, test developers, test users, and society. This means that a person who may have a diverse background will not be promoted or demoted on skill or lack of skill along but their ethical and/or religious background will be taken into consideration in order to avoid discrimination. Test scores or tests maybe altered to the “level the playing field” (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010, p.53)
As a company grows or changes it may have to alter the criterion for a job in order for the company/organization to be creating equal opportunities for everyone. For example; say one of the criterion for the job maybe that there is travel involved and that included traveling on weekends. A practicing Jew who eats Kosher and cannot travel on weekends due to religious reasons would be left out of the job pool or a person who is unable to travel due to a disability would not be considered. If someone decided this was a discriminatory practice the company/organization would either have to alter the criterion, eliminate it altogether, or change it in some manner. The question could be raised is that fair to the employees who were already hired under the original criterion. A job with changing criterion can be challenging for the employer and the employee who is applying for the job. It brings up the question, are we hiring someone based the ability to complete the job or on the basis of being an equal opportunity employer? (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010)
![Team B ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()