below are other notes for the case study

Many of you struggle with statistics but you need at least a basic understanding. Here are some tips to help complete Case 5:

1. What kind of relationship exists between employees’ scores on the manual dexterity test and their performance ratings? (See page 209.)

2. Suppose a candidate scored 44 on the manual dexterity test. The regression equation predicting job performance using the manual dexterity test is:

32.465 + (1.234 ´ Manual dexterity test score)

What is the candidate’s predicted job performance? (Find the MEAN manual dexterity test score from the table. Multiply the numbers in parenthesis and add to the first number)

3. Assume that only candidates with predicted job performance above 85 are to be hired. This translates to a score of at least 43 on the manual dexterity test. Assume only those with scores above 43 were hired (20 of the 30 people in this sample). Would the use of this test have led to evidence of adverse impact based on sex or race? The relevant data on the 20 people exceeding the cutoff are above in Table B.

The hiring rate for females is 81.25% (13 hired out of 16 or 13/16=.8125). This is the highest proportion hired of any group of candidates.

According to the 4/5ths (also called the 80% rule), the hiring rate for any other groups (males in this case) should be at least 4/5 (80%) of the hiring rate for the group with the highest proportion hired.

.8 (80%) x .8125(hiring rate for females) = .65(65%).

The hiring rate for males is 50%,(7 hired out of 14 or 7/14=.50) which is less than 65%. Thus, there is evidence for adverse impact against males because men were hired at a proportionally lower rate. Now use this same process to compare the Hispanic, Caucasian, and African American groups.