THE FOUR-FIFTHS RULE FOR ASSESSING ADVERSE IMPACT: AN ARITHMETIC, INTUITIVE, AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE RULE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Evidence for adverse impact in applied, organizational settings can often depend on application of the “four-fifths rule.” We analyze the arithmetic four-fifths rule, its operationalization, and related statistical tests. We note that the rule has intuitive appeal and has arithmetic directness. On the other hand, the four-fifths rule contains many ambiguities because of the manner in which it is defined, as well as its use in practice. One purpose of this article is to discuss the arithmetic and statistical facets of the definition. A related purpose of this article is to demonstrate where the ambiguities (and possibly unintended consequences) with the four-fifths rule might arise when numerical interpretations are invoked. Implications for future research and academic dialogues are then noted.

[1]  James T. Austin,et al.  Statistical Conclusion Validity for Organizational Science Researchers: A Review , 1998 .

[2]  John W. Boudreau,et al.  Utility Analysis for Decisions in Human Resource Management , 1988 .

[3]  E. R. Harcum,et al.  The highly inappropriate calibrations of statistical significance. , 1989 .

[4]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[6]  Roger E. Kirk,et al.  Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). , 1995 .

[7]  Anthony E. Boardman.  Another Analysis of the EEOCC “Four-Fifths” Rule , 1979 .

[8]  Scott B. Morris,et al.  SIGNIFICANCE TESTS AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR THE ADVERSE IMPACT RATIO , 2000 .

[9]  Philip Bobko,et al.  Correlation and Regression: Applications for Industrial Organizational Psychology and Management , 2001 .

[10]  Joseph L. Fleiss,et al.  Measures of effect size for categorical data. , 1994 .

[11]  Paul R. Sackett,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF FORMING MULTI‐PREDICTOR COMPOSITES ON GROUP DIFFERENCES AND ADVERSE IMPACT , 1997 .

[12]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[13]  C. H. Lawshe.  Adverse impact: Is it a viable concept? , 1987 .

[14]  M. D. Dunnette.  Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 2005 .

[15]  Hilda Wing.  STATISTICAL HAZARDS IN THE DETERMINATION OF ADVERSE IMPACT WITH SMALL SAMPLES , 1982 .

[16]  David A. Harrison,et al.  Meta-analysis, level of analysis, and best estimates of population correlations: Cautions for interpreting meta-analytic results in organizational behavior , 1999 .

[17]  E. H. Simpson,et al.  The Interpretation of Interaction in Contingency Tables , 1951 .

[18]  Sandy L. Zabell,et al.  What Happened in Hazelwood: Statistics, Employment Discrimination, and the 80% Rule , 1984 .

[19]  James A. Breaugh,et al.  Effect Size Estimation: Factors to Consider and Mistakes to Avoid , 2003 .

[20]  Irwin Greenberg.  An Analysis of the EEOCC “Four-Fifths” Rule , 1979 .

[21]  K. Delucchi.  The use and misuse of chi-square: Lewis and Burke revisited. , 1983 .