Reverse Discrimination Case

[Lighthouse77]

Tests are, in my opinion as someone with LD, inherently unfair. I am not unintelligent, but I do not do well on tests because I have some issues which cause me to have trouble focusing and even cause me to have trouble understanding what is on the test, even though I may understand it in a different format. My point is that you can't recall every test for being unfair because almost every test IS unfair. I don't care what your color is, you shouldn't get told you can't have a job because of it. Period.

This is very true. Someone I know have ADD and allstate was testing on their listening skills. In his current job, he deal with phones all day long and people love him. They think he is the best. But allstate failed him on phone skills. He couldn't get the job because he could not get the machine to repeat itself (Being nervous with ADD made him lose focus for a few seconds)

 

[Babyblue]

I have a friend that is skilled in Fixing Air conditioning. He took all the classes he needed for a Certificate. He just can not seem to pass the test. I told him to see if he can request an oral test or test his skills on A/C.. I felt it is unfair because he does know everything about A/C inside, out. He just does not test well.

 

[jillio]

I have a friend that is skilled in Fixing Air conditioning. He took all the classes he needed for a Certificate. He just can not seem to pass the test. I told him to see if he can request an oral test or test his skills on A/C.. I felt it is unfair because he does know everything about A/C inside, out. He just does not test well.

And that is something else that needs to be considered when relying on a single score to make a decision such as this.

 

[November Gypsy]

I feel for both your friends, Lighthouse and Babyblue. It's an imperfect system, that's for sure. Like Jillio (I think) said, it happens because the people that come up with tests refuse to consider the fact that, to test fairly, they cannot give the same test to every human on the planet. I'm a little harsh on this issue. Aside from my issues, one of the sweetest kids in my class had to repeat his whole senior year, not because he didn't try and not because he didn't get good homework grades but because the tests were not made so that he could take them.

 

[rockin'robin]

Had a friend that could not read or write. He was mentally challenged also.

To most people, he seemed "dumb".

It was his "hobby" that floored me! He had several cars that he had rebuilt from the ground up...motor/interior/exterior, etc. He could take a car motor out, and rebuild it. He loved motors! And drove these cars on the highways.

Not only car motors, but watches,.....anything he could take apart and fix!

"Testing" him (written) would be impossible...but giving him "hands on", he would get superior marks!

He did get a job in an upholstery shop, and made good money.

 

[jillio]

Those are great examples, November Gypsy, and rockin'robin. An alternate format in the test for the one person would have resulted in very different scores and would be a much more accurate representation of his knowledge and ability. In the second situation, you might have an individual that would score, overall, very low on an IQ test because of the low score he would receive on the verbal portion of the test, but if given a non-verbal, his high kinesthetic intelligence would increase his score significantly.

This is true for all tests and assessments, not just IQ tests. For example, if some depression inventories are given to a certain population, they will appear to be depressed fromthe score they get. But when one looks at the way the questions are phrased, it is evident that the person is not depressed, but responding to the questions from their own cultural understanding of what is being asked. That is why it is so important to consider culture and language when interpreting results, and to make sure that the test you are giving remains reliable and valid cross-culturally.

 

[lsfoster]

I feel for both your friends, Lighthouse and Babyblue. It's an imperfect system, that's for sure. Like Jillio (I think) said, it happens because the people that come up with tests refuse to consider the fact that, to test fairly, they cannot give the same test to every human on the planet. I'm a little harsh on this issue. Aside from my issues, one of the sweetest kids in my class had to repeat his whole senior year, not because he didn't try and not because he didn't get good homework grades but because the tests were not made so that he could take them.

I don't mean to single you out, November, just your post nicely summed up some things. The thing is, I don't disagree with the general idea you're all saying, but that's not really the point. You also can't test fairly by giving everyone a different test. Are there some ways to make things more equal? Sure, giving a deaf person a test with oral components is clearly putting them at a disadvantage. If there is someone with a handicap which impedes their writing, and they need extra time, there are easy ways to handle that. But the point of tests is not to give someone "something they can pass." It's to test them.

If your friend (just speaking generally now, not responding to November's post) can build a car, and you want to test someone's ability to build a car, an easy test would be: make them build a car. It determines if the person can do what they are being "tested" on. But what if he wanted to work as a mechanic, and he needed to be able to report specifically what was wrong, order replacement parts, leave notes for other mechanics on what was wrong or being done... Then, there would be a different test, and the fact that he wouldn't do well on it doesn't change what was being tested. It wouldn't just be about "can he build a car".

In the case of the firefighters' test, there is no actual evidence that the test was unfair with respect to what it was supposed to be testing. Unless someone can tell me what the written and oral parts each covered, respectively, and how important those things are to determining someone's qualifications for a position, you can't say anything about the test. What they can say is that scientifically, minorities test lower. Regardless of the test, subject, how it's given, all of that. They test lower. The only way to "make that more fair", and the way that it is almost always done is to make the test easier so that more of them pass.

I think that that's more offensive. If you ignored the race of the people in this situation, the city would never even have had a problem to deal with. I think that saying you're going to "make something more fair" by making it easier for people who would usually not do well, that's unfair to them and to everyone who does well either way.

(Also, as a side note, I do think that the reason minorities test lower has to do with socio-economic status and education problems in our country. But the reasons behind it don't really change the fact that it's true.)

 

[jillio]

I don't mean to single you out, November, just your post nicely summed up some things. The thing is, I don't disagree with the general idea you're all saying, but that's not really the point. You also can't test fairly by giving everyone a different test. Are there some ways to make things more equal? Sure, giving a deaf person a test with oral components is clearly putting them at a disadvantage. If there is someone with a handicap which impedes their writing, and they need extra time, there are easy ways to handle that. But the point of tests is not to give someone "something they can pass." It's to test them.

If your friend (just speaking generally now, not responding to November's post) can build a car, and you want to test someone's ability to build a car, an easy test would be: make them build a car. It determines if the person can do what they are being "tested" on. But what if he wanted to work as a mechanic, and he needed to be able to report specifically what was wrong, order replacement parts, leave notes for other mechanics on what was wrong or being done... Then, there would be a different test, and the fact that he wouldn't do well on it doesn't change what was being tested. It wouldn't just be about "can he build a car".

In the case of the firefighters' test, there is no actual evidence that the test was unfair with respect to what it was supposed to be testing. Unless someone can tell me what the written and oral parts each covered, respectively, and how important those things are to determining someone's qualifications for a position, you can't say anything about the test. What they can say is that scientifically, minorities test lower. Regardless of the test, subject, how it's given, all of that. They test lower. The only way to "make that more fair", and the way that it is almost always done is to make the test easier so that more of them pass.

I think that that's more offensive. If you ignored the race of the people in this situation, the city would never even have had a problem to deal with. I think that saying you're going to "make something more fair" by making it easier for people who would usually not do well, that's unfair to them and to everyone who does well either way.

(Also, as a side note, I do think that the reason minorities test lower has to do with socio-economic status and education problems in our country. But the reasons behind it don't really change the fact that it's true.)

It was stated in the OP that the test measured memorization. The thing with testing memorization is that having memorized certain facts does not make one capable of applying that information to real life examples, or to synthesize the information in order to apply it to other situations other than the one involved in memorization. A test that assesses memorization, quite frankly, doesn't test for ability. It simply tests the ability to memorize and repeat back. An example would be the SAT. It has been shown to be a very poor predictor of success in college. The skills necessary to obtain a high SAT score are not the same skills that are necessary to be successful in higher education. The same with an employment exam that tests for skills that are not necessary to be successful in a given job.

And you are correct. The reason that disparities exist is not the issue. The fact that they do exist, and must be taken into account, especially when a test has been found to be culturally biased, is the issue.

 

[lsfoster]

It was stated in the OP that the test measured memorization. The thing with testing memorization is that having memorized certain facts does not make one capable of applying that information to real life examples, or to synthesize the information in order to apply it to other situations other than the one involved in memorization. A test that assesses memorization, quite frankly, doesn't test for ability. It simply tests the ability to memorize and repeat back. An example would be the SAT. It has been shown to be a very poor predictor of success in college. The skills necessary to obtain a high SAT score are not the same skills that are necessary to be successful in higher education. The same with an employment exam that tests for skills that are not necessary to be successful in a given job.

And you are correct. The reason that disparities exist is not the issue. The fact that they do exist, and must be taken into account, especially when a test has been found to be culturally biased, is the issue.

First of all, it said it might favor memorization. Again, nothing conclusive. Secondly, in a situation like this, memorization might actually be exactly what they want to test. They have an oral part as well, but with things like firefighting, police, military, the reason that they have the written sections are to see if the things that people need to know are actually just second-nature, ingrained knowledge. This isn't the kind of test where they're looking to see how well you "understand" something, like the SAT or school exams, where you can memorize without understanding, or understand but test poorly and not have the test represent your knowledge.

This is why I said you can't decide without knowing more about the test. Unless you know that testing "memorization" or the fact that these people are able to remember vital pieces of information with no question is not actually an effective way to test their qualifications, you can't say that the test is unfair. And I haven't said anywhere that it is fair. All I've said is that it's impossible to decide without the specifics about the exam. My instinct based on the situation and the reasons that it is being questioned and how so many similar cases end, is to guess that the test is going to be deemed "unfair" because people who weren't as qualified didn't do as well, which as far as I'm concerned, is just ridiculous.

 

[jillio]

First of all, it said it might favor memorization. Again, nothing conclusive.

"Sources of bias included that the written section measured memorization rather than actual skills needed for the jobs" This is from the OP.


Secondly, in a situation like this, memorization might actually be exactly what they want to test.
Evidently, memorization is not what they wanted to test, or questions regarding the validity of the instrument would not be in question. Keep in mind that professionals with the Board of Organizational Psychology are backing the questions regarding validity. I would suggest that they are far more aware of issues regarding validity and reliability of testing instruments that are you, as this is a good deal of their education and professional scope of practice.

They have an oral part as well, but with things like firefighting, police, military, the reason that they have the written sections are to see if the things that people need to know are actually just second-nature, ingrained knowledge. This isn't the kind of test where they're looking to see how well you "understand" something, like the SAT or school exams, where you can memorize without understanding, or understand but test poorly and not have the test represent your knowledge.

Simply having an oral part would not increase the validity or the reliability of a test that has been found to measure something other than what it is intended to measure. And you also need to keep in mind that federal laws prohibit giving an assessment for promotion or employment that does not specifically test for the skills necessary to do the job.
This is why I said you can't decide without knowing more about the test. Unless you know that testing "memorization" or the fact that these people are able to remember vital pieces of information with no question is not actually an effective way to test their qualifications, you can't say that the test is unfair. And I haven't said anywhere that it is fair. All I've said is that it's impossible to decide without the specifics about the exam. My instinct based on the situation and the reasons that it is being questioned and how so many similar cases end, is to guess that the test is going to be deemed "unfair" because people who weren't as qualified didn't do as well, which as far as I'm concerned, is just ridiculous.

It takes a bit more than instinct to make a decision regarding validity and reliability of an assessment instrument.

 

[Reba]

First of all, it said it might favor memorization. Again, nothing conclusive. Secondly, in a situation like this, memorization might actually be exactly what they want to test....

Exactly. Firefighting does include the memorization of safe time limits, chemistry and chemical reactions, materials tolerances, water PSI requirements, flash points, equipment calibrations and maintenance, etc. Knowing these things has to become second nature because firefighters deal with fast-moving life-and-death situations.

 

[lsfoster]

It takes a bit more than instinct to make a decision regarding validity and reliability of an assessment instrument.

There is absolutely no concrete evidence or decisions that have been made about it's validity. Again, you're ignoring the "potentially" right before the quote you gave. So we're both choosing a side based on what we happen to think. I didn't say that my instinct made the test reliable. I said that based on what I know, think, and have read, I think one thing. You think another.

I haven't said anything definitive about whether or not it was reliable. You're the one who keeps trying to say that it was unreliable, even though there's no evidence either way. I said that many of these test do actually need to test someone's ability to memorize a large number of things, and that there was also an oral component. Your response was that the oral part doesn't make up for the fact that the test isn't valid, and that there are laws against testing for skills that aren't necessary. But you still don't have anything that says the test was invalid, or that the memorization it tested isn't necessary for the job.

If we're just going to keep going around in circles, why don't I save us the trouble: the test could be valid or not. I think that basically sums it up.

 

[jillio]

Exactly. Firefighting does include the memorization of safe time limits, chemistry and chemical reactions, materials tolerances, water PSI requirements, flash points, equipment calibrations and maintenance, etc. Knowing these things has to become second nature because firefighters deal with fast-moving life-and-death situations.

Actually, they don't need to memorize such. They need to be able to apply such. Memorization does not test for ability to apply.

 

[jillio]

There is absolutely no concrete evidence or decisions that have been made about it's validity. Again, you're ignoring the "potentially" right before the quote you gave. So we're both choosing a side based on what we happen to think. I didn't say that my instinct made the test reliable. I said that based on what I know, think, and have read, I think one thing. You think another.

I haven't said anything definitive about whether or not it was reliable. You're the one who keeps trying to say that it was unreliable, even though there's no evidence either way. I said that many of these test do actually need to test someone's ability to memorize a large number of things, and that there was also an oral component. Your response was that the oral part doesn't make up for the fact that the test isn't valid, and that there are laws against testing for skills that aren't necessary. But you still don't have anything that says the test was invalid, or that the memorization it tested isn't necessary for the job.

If we're just going to keep going around in circles, why don't I save us the trouble: the test could be valid or not. I think that basically sums it up.

I have said that, based on the reports, the test has some suspected flaws that have been determined to represent bias in this test. And you are simply ignoring the fact that the test should have been determined to be valid and reliable prior to it ever being given. Had this been done, there could be no questions now regarding its validity and reliability.

Evidently the Board of Organizational Psych has determined that memorization is not a something that needs to be tested on a skill based test. Now, if the job requirements for promotion specifically say that memorization is a necessary skill for the job, then they have a leg to stand on. If it isn't stated that it is a skill mandatory for promotion, then the fire fighters filing the lawsuit have the valid point.

Likewise, you are failing to recognize that there are numerous issues that must be considered prior to determing if an assessment if reliable and valid. Something as simple as the way a question is phrased can determine a test to invalid.

The only reason we are going in circles is because there is an obvious misunderstanding of what it necessary to determine whether an instrument is valid and reliable for the intent for which it is used.

 

[Daredevel7]

Correct, testing for memorization does not test the ability to apply. However, you DO need to memorize in order to apply.

However... I STILL don't understand what being black have to do ANYTHING?? I understand for the mentally handicapped or people who think differently, etc. But uhh don't black people have the same brains as white people....?

 

[Chef]

You say the test needs to evaluate a person's ability to apply the information, not their ability to memorize it? How can they apply it if they haven't memorized it? You must know this information first inside and out! This is not some simple office job this is life and death stuff, if you can't remember it for the test how can you be relied upon to know it in a crisis situation?

 

[jillio]

You say the test needs to evaluate a person's ability to apply the information, not their ability to memorize it? How can they apply it if they haven't memorized it? You must know this information first inside and out! This is not some simple office job this is life and death stuff, if you can't remember it for the test how can you be relied upon to know it in a crisis situation?

I think you are missing the point. It can't be applied unless it has been learned, but memorizing it does not insure that it can be applied. In other words, knowing a particular fact does not mean that you can use that information. And this was not a test to determine their fitness as firefighters. They were already firefighters, so obviously they were capable of performing the job as a firefighter. It was a test to determine a promotion.

 

[jillio]

Correct, testing for memorization does not test the ability to apply. However, you DO need to memorize in order to apply.

However... I STILL don't understand what being black have to do ANYTHING?? I understand for the mentally handicapped or people who think differently, etc. But uhh don't black people have the same brains as white people....?

Cultural differences. They must also be accounted for and taken into consideration when interpreting scores on any assessment. For instance, and this is just an unrelated example to illustrate my point:

If I was giving an assessment for schizophrenia, and someone who is a member of one of the fundamentalist faiths were asked on the assessment: "Do you ever hear voices when there is no one there?" someone with that cultural background could very well answer "Yes", because they "talk" to God, and "hear" his replies. Their answer is more an indication of their particular religious believes than of schizophrenia. Testing that allows for a choice between a few answers, such as multiple choice, which is the format used most often to test for fact based memorization, does not allow for explanation of an answer. However, if I ignore the cultural implications when I interpret the score, I am liable to place a diagnosis of schizophrenia" on the person innacurately. While that is an extreme example, I used it to show how we must always look at the phrasing of items on an assessment to determine the amount of cultural influence that could be possible in any given answer. Many many accepted and standardized instruments have been shown to give lower scores for many multicultural populations; not because the individual was not as capable, but because the testing items were inherently biased. All I'm saying is, this is a well known phenomena in testing and assessment, it is an accepted risk that anyone involved in assessment is aware of, as well as the need to account for it. It it can happen with tests that have been standardized and validated, it most certainly can happen on one that has not been compared to other like instruments to determine its validity and reliabilty. Also, a test can be valid and reliable with one population, but be compromised when used to test a different population.

 

[Chef]

It can't be applied unless it has been learned,

This is my point exactly. While knowing the information doesn't necessarily mean that you can apply it, if you don't know it then you definately can't apply it.

As you said, these people are already firefighters. This is not a test of how well they can fight fires, it is a test of how well they know information that is ESSENTIAL to performance in the positions for which they are applying.

My father has been a volunteer firefighter since before I was born. I remember helping him study for his Captain's test. The sample questions that they were given for practice which very closely mirrored the questions on the actual test were not trick questions. They were not the type of questions that were open to interpretation. They were questions like, "In New York state what agency must be notified immediately whenever hazardous chemical spills occur?"

 

[jillio]

This is my point exactly. While knowing the information doesn't necessarily mean that you can apply it, if you don't know it then you definately can't apply it.

As you said, these people are already firefighters. This is not a test of how well they can fight fires, it is a test of how well they know information that is ESSENTIAL to performance in the positions for which they are applying.

My father has been a volunteer firefighter since before I was born. I remember helping him study for his Captain's test. The sample questions that they were given for practice which very closely mirrored the questions on the actual test were not trick questions. They were not the type of questions that were open to interpretation. They were questions like, "In New York state what agency must be notified immediately whenever hazardous chemical spills occur?"

And just because you have memorized it, doesn't mean you have learned it. And of course someone will do better on a test when they have been given questions that mirror the actual questions on the test. They then know what facts they need to memorize in order to pass the test. That is not necessarily learning. Quite simply, in the testing and assessment arena, this is known as the "practice effect." It is also something that needs to be considered when interpreting results.

All questions are open to interpretation.