A Message From Your President

Angelo DeNisi

It seems that I just finished writing one of these columns (or at least just finished reading one), and it's already time for another! I'm sorry to intrude again, but there are a few things I thought I should bring you up to date on. As I write this, I just received my "Call for Proposals" for next year's SIOP Program, but the problem with editorial lead times is that, by time you read this, the deadline for submissions will already have passed. So, I guess I should just say that I hope you plan to attend the New Orleans meeting, and I look forward to seeing you there.

You might also want to know something about a recent court case that may figure significantly in SIOP's future. Lanning v. SEPTA involved a series of physical ability tests which were used to select transit police officers for the South East Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA). The specific test in question was 1.5 mile run, designed to test aerobic capacity, and the requirement was that an applicant complete this run in 12 minutes. For the years 1993_1996, the pass rate was 6.7% for women and 55.6% for men. There is a lot going on in the case, regarding the way in which this cut-off was determined, and I encourage all of you to read more about the case. The points of relevance for SIOP though, followed the original ruling in favor of SEPTA. This decision was reversed and remanded for further consideration (in a split decision) by a three-judge panel of the 3^rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In their decision, these judges (referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1991) concluded that cut-off scores should be set at the minimum level needed to perform the job. In other words, cut-off scores should NOT be set in a way to suggest that "more is better." Furthermore, these judges stated that the "Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures" (SIOP Principles), which guided the way in which the tests were validated, were no longer applicable because they were " inconsistent with the mission of Griggs and the business necessity standard adopted by the Act."

Therefore, one issue involves the setting of cut-off scores and whether they should be set at the level of minimal qualifications or not. This is an issue that is important to SIOP members both in academia and in practice. The other big issue is the fact that the judges specifically cited the SIOP Principles as being irrelevant. Now, I've been assured by several of our members that the judges were wrong, but this is not something we want out there to serve as a precedent.

The real question is whether SIOP wants to get involved in this case. We've spoken to the APA Counsel, Jim McHugh, who pointed out that SIOP cannot file an amicus brief on its own, but must go through APA to do so. This means that if we did want to go on the record on this case, we need to go through APA. For right now though, the full Appeals Court is deciding whether or not to review the case, and there is nothing to do until they decide. Once they decide, we must decide if the issues involved are important enough to SIOP to weigh in, even if there are things about the study we don't like.

Unfortunately, the problem is further complicated by some questions about how the test was validated, and some SIOP members were involved in the original case on the side of the Department of Justice. Therefore, we have several important issues on the one hand, and some questions about how the validation was done on the other hand. If there were problems with the validation procedures, does SIOP want to get involved in this case because of the statements about our principles and/or because of the statements about setting cut-off scores? You'll be hearing more about this in the future.

Speaking of legal issues, we're also waiting for final word from APA about a SIOP Member Referral Service. This initiative came out of a strategic planning session Kevin Murphy held in Washington D.C. a while back. Elaine Pulakos followed up on the initiative and Jeff Schippmann (Chair of Professional Practices) convinced Dale Smalley and Wanda Campbell to work on actually pulling it together. They developed a prototype and were ready to begin testing, when the issue was raised about legal liability. That is, the system would work by having someone search a site for I-O psychologists who had expertise on test validation (for example). The service would list everyone in SIOP who had listed this as an area of expertise (as another part of the system), and the user would then choose to contact whomever he or she wanted. SIOP would simply serve as a clearinghouse, but we still had concerns that this would be the same as a recommendation. If the person did a lousy job for the client, could SIOP be liable? The answer seems to be "no," but there are a few more questions to be answered before we can start this service in earnest.

In another development, a member in Tennessee, who was approached by the Tennessee Psychological Association for help, has recently contacted me. Basically, the TPA wanted to know HOW a person trained as a clinical psychologist could retool to practice I-O psychology. Now, this kind of question has always been a sensitive one for SIOP. Many members want to keep clinicians out of I-O psychology, but it is true that many people claim expertise in I-O based on a course they once took, and practice whether or not they are qualified. I think we should all be opposed to that kind of activity, but here we are talking about clinicians who want to learn about I-O in order to broaden their practice. I think this is a different situation and one where we should be responsive. We should not (and CANNOT) exclude anyone from the practice of I-O psychology. We can only argue that they should not practice in areas where they are unqualified. Here is a case where a group is asking us what we think they need to do to be qualified to practice I-O. We have a couple of people trying to come up with some models, but I'd like to hear from some others out there concerning their views on all this.

Finally, in my last letter I noted my desire to have SIOP more involved in APA. A number of years ago, one of our members and former President, Milt Hakel, was on the ballot for APA President. Although I'm sure that many SIOP members voted for him, and were encouraged to do so, he was not officially endorsed by SIOP as a candidate. I understand that everyone has the choice to vote for whom they want (and they will do so no matter what anyone says), but I wanted to try to initiate a process whereby SIOP could come to endorse candidates. That's not to say that we would do so every year, but we could at least get involved in formal support for candidates we thought would help SIOP. Well, the timing of APA elections and SIOP meetings is such that we cannot do this for the coming election. There simply is not enough time to decide HOW to decide to endorse a candidate and then do so. Nonetheless, I'd like to put in my two cents about the upcoming election.

I've met several of the candidates in APA Council Meetings, and they are all good, hard working people. If you review the list of candidates, though, you will notice that three of the five are health care providers. Within SIOP, when we talk about practitioners, we mean I-O psychologists in industry or consulting; within APA "practioners" usually mean health care providers. There is nothing wrong with this group of psychologists, except that they tend to be concerned about issues not relevant for most SIOP members (e.g., dealing with HMOs, third party insurance payments, prescription rights). Of the two academics, one actually has interests relevant to SIOP, and is now a member of SIOP. Ludy Benjamin is knowledgeable about SIOP, and has specialized in the history of psychology in business. I believe he is someone who is interested in drawing SIOP more into the mainstream of APA, and I therefore believe he would help us in dealing with the conflicts we have with APA. I will vote for Ludy Benjamin and, as a fellow SIOP member, I recommend that you do so as well. Note, however, that I make this recommendation as another SIOP memberthis is not an official endorsement.

It probably won't be a surprise to learn that most APA members don't vote at all. Although we are outnumbered by health care providers, the truth of the matter is that if every SIOP member who belongs to APA (just over 2,500 of us) voted for ANY one candidate, that person would have enough votes to win the APA Presidential election. I told you who I am voting for; whatever YOU decide, please take the time to learn about the candidates and vote. It's amazing how important and critical your vote can be. Thanks, and I'll be back in a few months, which is really a long time from now, but it won't be.... Oh, forget it!

October 1999 Table of Contents | TIP Home | SIOP Home