University of Missouri-St. Louis

Greetings from St. Louis! Some of you may be familiar with a British sci-fi/fantasy television program called "Dr. Who." Do you know the name of the most popular actor serving in the role of Dr. Who? He was none other than Tom Baker (nope, not our Tom Baker, though). If you watched many of the "Dr. Who" shows, you probably also know that Dr. Who would sometimes be "destroyed," and then reborn in a different form (i.e., a new actor would take his place). Likewise, despite my slightly different appearance from our Tom Baker, I intend to serve faithfully as the new Dr. Who for Practice Network (PN). As you may recall from Tom Baker’s last PN column, I agreed to take over as columnist for PN (hardly a hostile acquisition, by the way). Although I doubt that I can match the keen wit of Tom, I hope that I can at least fill some space. Actually, my true goal is to save us from the Dalek’s (Dr. Who’s arch enemy) invasion.

On a slightly more serious note, my goal for this column is to focus on a specific theme or two that will be of interest to practitioners, as well as anyone else, including academics. My goal is to track the pulse of I-O psychologists regarding important issues of interest (e.g., the success or lack thereof for the Chicago Cubs will not be addressed in this column). I hope, therefore, that you will feel free to recommend topics that are of interest to you, provide insight as to issues you are experiencing as a practitioner, and in general, help me to write this column. Finally, if I do happen to call upon you for insights into a particular topic or issue, I hope that you will feel free to talk with me about it.

What follows next is a summary of their responses, as well as my reactions as I thought about and synthesized the responses I received.

ADA and I-O Psychology

In general, the I-O psychologists I talked with felt that I-O psychology had a great deal to offer to organizations seeking to comply with ADA. As Dave Robinson put it, I-O psychology makes for a nice "fit" with ADA law because of our profession’s emphasis on job analysis, testing, and job redesign. There seemed to be unanimity among the people I spoke with that I-O psychology could play a major role in helping companies meet the legal requirements under ADA. For example, David Smith reported conducting a job analysis to determine the "essential functions" of production jobs. However, there seemed to be recognition that some of I-O psychology’s basic tenets might need to be reconsidered somewhat. As an example, Kay Lillig Cotter noted that we have always emphasized equal opportunity (e.g., everyone takes the same test), while ADA emphasizes equitable opportunity (e.g., everyone takes the test that is most suitable for them). Thus, ADA may require rethinking for some of our tenets and practices.

Has ADA Changed the Practice of I-O Psychology?

A number of I-O psychologists I talked with indicated that ADA had little or no effect on their work. Why? One explanation is that many large organizations have already been covered by similar state laws (e.g., in California, as noted by Cal Hoffman) or Federal laws (e.g., government contractors are generally covered by the Rehabilitation Act). For some organizations, then, basic ADA practices have been in place for many years already. A second explanation is that for test publishers, ADA appears to have little effect. Among the test publishers that I talked with, there appeared to be little difficulty in ensuring that their products complied with ADA (e.g., George Paajanen; Rob Altmann). The only type of test items that required change were items dealing with alcohol or drug use—and changing or eliminating these items was seen as relatively uncomplicated. Because most of the tests developed and used by I-O psychologists are nonmedical examinations, EEOC guidelines on ADA seem to have had little effect. The most important change for organizations doing assessments was the need for reasonable accommodation, as described below.

Reading between the lines there is, I think, a third possible explanation for the relatively minor effect of ADA alluded to by several I-O psychologists, namely, that it is too early to judge the impact on I-O psychology. A reason it may be too early to judge the impact is that there have been relatively few, if any, I-O-related ADA lawsuits as of yet. First, the ADA is a relatively new law; it went into effect only half dozen or so years ago. Second, given the relatively strong economy, many job applicants and employees may find an easier time obtaining employment and therefore are much less likely to suffer discrimination than they would have experienced in other times. In any case, several I-O psychologists indicated that it was premature to make a judgment about ADA and its effect on I-O psychology.

Interestingly, Wade Gibson observed that there was initially great concern expressed by some of PSI’s clients regarding the effect of ADA on testing (e.g., many requests for accommodation). The actual effect of ADA has been far less than they expected. I would like to add that legal experts seem to indicate that the courts have tended to side with the defendants; David Arnold observed that the courts are often not agreeing with EEOC guidelines and are making rulings that do not agree with the EEOC’s position. These trends may mean that ADA has had little effect on I-O practices.

The Effect of Reasonable Accommodation

The aspect of I-O psychology that appears to have been most affected by ADA is the reasonable accommodation requirement for pre-employment testing. Thus, the biggest impact of ADA for the I-O psychologist may be the need to design a process for people requesting an accommodation in taking tests. From all I heard, this is an issue where I-O psychologists may have a unique role to play.

Although relatively rare—fewer than 1 out of 1,000 test-takers appear to request a reasonable accommodation—Wade Gibson noted that firms have "bent over backwards" to make alternative arrangements. Although a typical accommodation involves giving extra time or providing a "large print" edition of the test, in cases where the modification was so major as to question the meaning of any results, some organizations may offer a completely different test. It was also pointed out that although some accommodations could be quite expensive (e.g., a specially proctored exam), this was viewed as less costly and less likely to create negative publicity than a possible lawsuit from failing to provide reasonable accommodation.

A Crystal Ball

In terms of the future effect of ADA on I-O psychology, most of the respondents did not feel that ADA would lead to major changes in our practices. Several noted areas or issues that might become more important. For example, Michael Feuer predicted that there would be greater use of structured interviews, job analysis, and formal job descriptions as a result of this law. He pointed out that one of the first requested documents in an EEOC investigation of an ADA charge is a formal, written job description and that this would encourage companies to develop such documents. He also predicted that ergonomics would receive greater attention in the future as a result of the ADA, creating greater demand for psychologists with a knowledge of this area. Dave Robinson discussed how use of standardized job analysis procedures may enable I-O psychologists and companies to find suitable job placements for applicants and employees with a disability. This may be another promising use of job analysis that receives greater attention in the future.

Another important area for ADA in the future may be increased focus on learning disabilities. As David Smith suggested, the need to accommodate such disabilities (e.g., such as individuals with Attention Deficit Disorder) may pose interesting challenges for I-O psychologists. The importance of other specialties (e.g., educational psychology) with expertise in this area, however, may overshadow the application of I-O psychology.

So, in general, what role will I-O psychologists play in future with regard to ADA compliance? Dave Robinson suggested that I-O psychologists are ideally suited for enabling companies to successfully meet ADA requirements. Indeed, it would seem that our unique blend of competencies (i.e., legal knowledge, ability to assess both job requirements and employee aptitudes, and counseling abilities) would serve us well as ADA trainers, intermediaries, and problem solvers. I fear, however, that organizations will instead narrowly focus on their legal exposure and rely primarily on lawyers, rather than I-O psychologists, in this capacity. Alternatively, one I-O psychologist in industry (who preferred to remain anonymous), indicated that she helped create a process for her organization to address reasonable accommodation requests on the job. Specifically, she helped form teams composed of HR staff, line managers, and medical professionals to review and discuss accommodation requests as they arose. Although I-O psychologists may not be the parties that solve ADA problems, then, we may help to design processes that will address these issues.

Summary and Conclusions

To date, then, ADA appears to have had a minimal effect on I-O psychology. None of the I-O psychologists that I talked with seem to have been very affected by the law. Nor did any of them report any current major project that they were engaged in related to ADA (e.g., little litigation support work was in progress). On the other hand, none of the people I talked with suggested that ADA was unimportant or irrelevant to their work. ADA was just another part of legal compliance programs and training programs (e.g., part of diversity training). In terms of the future effect, several of the people indicated that a major court decision could change their conclusions about the effect of ADA on I-O psychology. At present, however, there was little reason to believe that ADA will significantly change I-O practices in the future. ADA is nonetheless a law that I-O psychologists need to know.

Reactions to this column? Have you had a different experience with ADA? Topics you want to see covered in the future? Please contact me at c1994@umslvma.umsl.edu, phone (314)-516-6280, fax (314)-516-6420, or, Michael Harris, School of Business Administration, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63121. I look forward to hearing from you!