Laserfiche WebLink
I t/i W <br />questions objectionable. Therefore, it is clear that punitive <br />barrages are not warranted in the present case. <br />RSKBSZBS <br />2. Tlie MPRS Testing Process Cen be ASMnded To Address issues <br />Rsised By the Court's Order of October 5, 1994. <br />The principal objection to the MFRS testing process described <br />in the Order of the Court of October 5, 1994 is that the <br />effectiveness of the test to predict job performance is not <br />sufficiently compelling to outweigh the adverse impact on black <br />candidates. The primary areas of concern to the court were the use <br />of objectionable questions, the use of the AP predictor and the <br />emphasis in the scoring process on the Watson Glaser test. <br />A number cf changes could be .made to the testing process to <br />address these issues. These include: elimination of the AP <br />predictor; elim.inaticn of questions 6-10, 41-43 and 73-75 on the 21m <br />form of the Watson Glaser test and creation of conversion tables <br />for the abbreviated test; and elimiination of the use of cut scores <br />on the CG and 3?. predictors, so that all candidates who present a <br />valid psychological profile and pass the physical agility test will <br />receive a score and will be placed on the eligibility roster. <br />These changes would re.medy all objections to specific <br />questic.ns and all objections to the use of the AP predictor. They <br />would also substantially dee.mphasize the cognitive parts of the <br />.MPRS testing process in general, and the Watson Glaser test in <br />particular. <br />3y eliminating the A? predictor, the only predictor which is <br />100% cognitive would be eliminated. A,dditlonally the EAS total