Using the data above, calculate the following:

Average PS scores for the whole sample, males, females, nonminorities, and minorities.

The correlation between PS scores and performance ratings, and its statistical significance $(r=\mathrm{.}37$ or higher is needed for significance at

sizable enough to warrant concern for Yellow Blaze.

Using the data, results, and description of the study, answer the following questions:

and validity.

With a cutoff score of $7$ on the PS$,$ would its use lead to disparate impact against women? Against minorities? If there is disparate impact, does the validity evidence justify use of the PS anyway?

promotion potential? Do you think that the method of rating performance is sufficient as a criterion, and if so$,$ why? If not, what additional steps would you take to ensure that performance is measured adequately?

of any ways that this system might be improved?

data suggest that there is$,$ in fact, a substantial difference in performance evaluation ratings for different groups of employees? How should the organization respond to this individual employee's concerns?Conducting Empirical Validation and Disparate Impact Analysis

and rating the suitability of salespeople for the manager's job.

managerial practices and procedures, refund and exchange policies, and record$-$keeping requirements. A total promotion suitability $($PS$)$ score, ranging from $3$ to $9,$ was then computed for each salesperson.

data were available for analysis:

Using the data above, calculate the following:

Using the data above, calculate the following:

$1)$Average PS scores for the $$whole sample, males, females, nonminorities, and minorities.page $361$

$2)$The correlation between PS scores and per$$for$$mance ratings, and its statistical significance $($r $=\mathrm{.}37$ or higher is needed for significance at p

$3)$ Disparate impact $($se$$lection rate$)$ statistics for males and females, and nonminorities and minorities. Use a PS score of $7$ or higher as a hy$$po$$thet$$i$$cal passing score $($the score that might be used to determine who $$will or $$will not be promoted$).$

$4)$ Average per$$for$$mance rating scores for the $$whole sample, males, females, nonminorities, and minorities. For each group, evaluate $$whether the per$$for$$mance rating scores are dif$$fer$$ent for subgroups of employees. Also evaluate $$whether the magnitude of $$these differences is sizable enough to warrant concern for Yellow Blaze.

Using the data, results, and description of the study, answer the following questions:

$1)$Is the PS score a valid predictor of per$$for$$mance as a store man$$ag$$er$?$ Do you see any potential reasons why $$either the customer ser$$vice orientation mea$$sure or knowledge of store operations mea$$sure might be problematic? In answering, consider issues related to reliability and validity.

$2)$ With a cutoff score of $7$ on the PS$,$ would its use lead to disparate impact against $$women$?$ Against minorities? If $$there is disparate impact, does the validity evidence justify use of the PS anyway?

$3)$What limitations do you see in the current study design? Do you think that the conclusions you would reach based on this sample of individuals who $$were promoted to store man$$ag$$er would generalize to the population of all salespeople who are being evaluated for promotion potential? Do you think that the method of rating per$$for$$mance is sufficient as a criterion, and if so$,$ why? If not, what additional steps would you take to ensure that per$$for$$mance is mea$$sured adequately?

$4)$Would you recommend that Yellow Blaze use the PS score in making $$future promotion decisions? Why or why not? If you said yes, can you think of anything the com$$pany could do to make $$these mea$$sures even better than they are already? If you said no$,$ can you think of any ways that this system might be improved?

$5)$One employee has raised questions regarding $$whether the per$$for$$mance ratings themselves are biased. This employee has not made a formal $$legal complaint against Yellow Blaze yet, but the organ$$ization wants to evaluate $$whether $$there is reason for concern. Based on the calculations you made regarding the differences for per$$for$$mance evaluation ratings for $$women relative to men, and for minorities relative to nonminorities, do you believe that $$there is reason for the organ$$ization to be concerned regarding this issue? In other words, do the data suggest that $$there is$,$ in fact, a substantial difference in per$$for$$mance evaluation ratings for dif$$fer$$ent groups of employees? How should the organ$$ization respond to this individual employee$$s concerns?