| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
rule. Thus, adverse impact would be found against Blacks (51% pass rate) and Hispanics (58% pass rate)
and a class of minorities could then challenge the initial cut-off decision (Recall Connecticut v. Teal, see
page 208). In addition, the method of selecting the 40 individuals would be critical. If the method was
“top–down” selection, there would be adverse impact against minorities.
2. Given your response to question 1, what are the policy options for this situation? What
policy do you recommend that Tenneco adopt for the use of the Wonderlic? Defend your
response by considering the job situation, the need for further research, legal and social
implications, and alternative methods of selection. Provide a detailed recommendation and
a rationale for action. If you take a position to drop the use of the Wonderlic, how do you
propose to identify the 40 candidates?
See page 183. Of course, one option is to drop the use of the test altogether. However, the validity
evidence on cognitive ability tests like the Wonderlic is quite strong (.51; see Figure 6-2)) and
replacement with some other method (e.g., assessment centers) is much more expensive (particularly
for 400 people; the Wonderlic may cost about $15 to use while assessment centers average over $300
3. What if you conducted a PAQ analysis that indicated that the Wonderlic was a valid test for
this job? Do you believe that this result establishes the legality of the Wonderlic? Given