Industrial/organizational psychology and the federal judiciary: expert witness testimony and the Daubert standards.

This research examined judicial perceptions of the field of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology, explored how judges evaluate and weigh I/O psychology expert witness testimony, and scrutinized the use of the Daubert factors in judicial assessments (of social scientific evidentiary reliability. In a mail survey, federal judges were randomly presented with one of four prototypical descriptions of I/O psychology expert witness testimony in civil age discrimination in employment litigation. Judges were found to be relatively unfamiliar with the field of I/O psychology, and few had previously heard or read the testimony of an I/O psychologist. Sixty-six percent of the federal judges rated themselves at least moderately likely to admit the expert's testimony at trial, regardless of the testimony scenario presented. Judges rated the evidence overall as relevant, moderately reliable, moderately probative, and prejudicial. Both judicial familiarity with the field of I/O psychology and prior experience with I/O testimony were found to be positively related to likelihood of admitting the evidence. Manipulations of the scientific foundation for the expert testimony did not substantially affect admission decision. Judges ascribed the most importance to the general acceptance Daubert factor in their evaluation of evidentiary reliability. Implications for the science and practice of I/O psychology in the legal system are presented and discussed.

Faking and selection: considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives.

The effects of faking on criterion-related validity and the quality of selection decisions are examined in the present study by combining the control of an experiment with the realism of an applicant setting. Participants completed an achievement motivation measure in either a control group or an incentive group and then completed a performance task. With respect to validity, greater prediction error was found in the incentive condition among those with scores at the high end of the predictor distribution. When selection ratios were small, those in the incentive condition were more likely to be selected and had lower mean performance than those in the control group. Implications for using personality assessments from select-in and select-out strategies are discussed.

Organizational downsizing and age discrimination litigation: the influence of personnel practices and statistical evidence on litigation outcomes.

The present study examined relationships between reduction-in-force (RIF) personnel practices, presentation of statistical evidence, and litigation outcomes. Policy capturing methods were utilized to analyze the components of 115 federal district court opinions involving age discrimination disparate treatment allegations and organizational downsizing. Univariate analyses revealed meaningful links between RIF personnel practices, use of statistical evidence, and judicial verdict. The defendant organization was awarded summary judgment in 73% of the claims included in the study. Judicial decisions in favor of the defendant organization were found to be significantly related to such variables as formal performance appraisal systems, termination decision review within the organization, methods of employee assessment and selection for termination, and the presence of a concrete layoff policy. The use of statistical evidence in ADEA disparate treatment litigation was investigated and found to be a potentially persuasive type of indirect evidence. Legal, personnel, and evidentiary ramifications are reviewed, and a framework of downsizing mechanics emphasizing legal defensibility is presented.