Psychology: Master: Coursework: English (U.S.): 7 pages/1925 words:APA 5 sources due in 24 hours
Cavico, Muffler and Mujtaba (2013) claim that appearance discrimination in employment, especially based on perceived “attractiveness,” has emerged as a controversial, and complicated, legal, ethical, and management concern. Your task this week is to assume that you have been asked to consult for a major physical fitness club chain to create an objective employee selection protocol. The owner has heard rumblings through the organization grapevine that attractive females and males tend to be promoted more often than less attractive ones. The owner is very concerned about possible lawsuits. He wants you to develop an objective appearance blind” job evaluation protocol to ensure that claims of bias cannot be made. Your task is to design an employee evaluation protocol that will focus on objective job criteria and not on physical appearance. You will need to locate at least five tests from the Mental Measurements Yearbook in the NCU library to support your proposal. Reference Cavico, F. J., Muffler, S. C., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2013). Appearance discrimination in employment. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32(1), 83-119. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02610151311305632
Comments:here is one of the test to support objectivity. _____
EBSCO Publishing Citation Format: APA (American PsychologicalAssoc.): _____
NOTE: Review the instructions athttp://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=ehost&lang=en&feature_id=APA and makeany necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention topersonal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your libraryresources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.
King, J. E. (n.d.). Employee Evaluation Series. Retrieved fromhttp://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.10015&site=ehost-live
Employee Evaluation Series
Review by BRENT BAXTER, Director, Agencies Research Division, ThePrudential Insurance Company of America, Newark, New Jersey:This series provides an overall package for evaluating most employees inmany companies. It has many practical aspects and attempts to present asimple formula for supervisors in both reviewing and interpreting theperformance of their employees.The structure of the series is a list of statements for each of the sixwork areas for which a form is provided. There are 50 items for eachtype of work (60 in forms are to be published). The value of the forms,to any given company is limited by the degree to which these generalitems apply to the job of the person being rated. The company might wellprefer to add or subtract certain items or put a different emphasis onthe job components than is included in the printed list. Theinstructions and language also will not be appropriate for allcompanies. Thus, a company which likes this multiple item approach torating may choose between the labors of tailor-making its own form orthe adoption of a carefully made form which may not fit its situationtoo well.The author emphasizes that this rating approach minimizes the haloeffect and lays stress on evaluating performance. But there is stillample opportunity for halo effect. Many items concern attitude ratherthan performance behavior, e.g., “Completely sold that this is the ‘bestplace in town’ to work,” Responses to this kind of item are subject tothe halo effect.At present, there is no manual to go with the series to explainadequately its reliability and other evaluating data. The author reportsone is currently being prepared. He submitted a manuscript of an APA(1949) paper indicating a corrected split half reliability for theclerical series of .92. Results from two raters correlated .81 (1). Itcorrelated .73 with results from a man-to-standard rating scale. Fromthe APA paper one may conclude that the clerical series has hadextensive statistical analysis. Efforts have been made to weed outambiguous items and items which correlate highly with the total score.Considerable effort has been made to design a scale which will result ina normal distribution of scores. While this achieves a desirable spreadof scores, there has been some overconcern with this aspect. Each rateris “expected” to achieve this normal distribution which may not fit hisgroup at all.The evaluation “system” is tied in with both percentiles and stanines.To have both of these scales may be confusing to many and isunnecessary. The stanine ranges are not calculated as is usually done(i.e., in equal class intervals).The present series provides for the rater to check a statement if it istrue about the employee and to leave it blank otherwise. Omissions thusmay be counted “against” the employee. The author reports that a revisedseries will provide for a “not true at present” marking. Neither formallows the rater to mark the statement “not relevant” or “don’t know.”This may force unjust ratings to be made.The author claims that by adding the favorable replies on the statementsone achieves a total score “in which the whole is actually greater thanthe sum of its parts.” This statement may mislead many readers intothinking that something special is added in some mysterious way.Apparently what is meant is that the items really represent a sample ofthe total number of statements that might be made about the employee andthat conclusions may now be drawn about the total. In view of how thesample was drawn, it might be much better to limit interpretations tothe specific statements.SUMMARY. The series utilizes the multiple item rating approach toprovide industry with a ready-made rating program. Although it is neatlyarranged and has many practical features, it doesn’t live up to some ofits marketing claims, such as being a basis for “getting away fromfavoritism and influence.” It is not a cure-all for personnel problems.It will not fit all companies; a tailor-made instrument is to bepreferred.