And now you are asking for non-expertist to provide to other non-experts a "plausible" example that passes the biased views of those non-experts.

And that isn't second guessing experts how?

degsme:

"predictively unbiased" Sorry don't buy that this has been fully demonstrated at all.

Essentially this is just racial mythology repackaged as "science"

Evidence showing that tests are valid for Whites, but not for Blacks does not occur any more than would be expected solely by chance. Here are a handful of studies to support this statement.

Boehm (1977). Differential prediction: a methodological artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 146-154.

Katzell & Dyer (1977). Differential validity revived. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 137-145.

O’Connor, Wexley, & Alexander (1975). Single group validity: fact or fallacy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 352-355.

Schmidt, Bemer, & Hunter (1973). Racial differences in validity of employment tests: reality or illusion? Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 5-9.

Furthermore, lower test scores among minorities are accompanied by subsequent lower job performance, the same as for Whites. Likewise, higher scores predict higher job performance. This holds for supervisory ratings and objective measures of performance. That is, they are not predictively biased. There is ample evidence to support this claim. Note that the first source is the American Psychological Association.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council of Measurement in Education (1999) Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Bartlett, Bobko, Mosier, & Hannan (1978). Testing for fairness with a moderated multiple regression strategy: an alternative to differential analysis. Personnel Psychology, 31, 233-241.

Gael & Grant (1972). Employment test validation for minority and nonminority telephone company service representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 135-139.

Gael, Grant, & Ritchie (1975). Employment test validation for minority and nonminority clerks with work sample criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 420-426.

Grant & Bray (1970). Validation of employment tests for telephone company installation and repair occupations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 7-14.

Neisser, Boodoo, Bouchard, Boykin, Brody, Ceci, Halpern, Loehlin, Perloff, Sternberg,& Urbina (1996). Intelligence: knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77-101

Schmidt, Pearlman, & Hunter (1980). The validity and fairness of employment and educational tests for Hispanic Americans: a review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 33, 705-724.

Sackett & Wilk (1994) Within-group norming and other forms of score adjustment in preemployment testing. American Psychologist, 49, 929-954.

But herein lies the porblem. Your measure of "plausible" is mediated by your biases against Affirmative Action. So it really isn't that you are looking for plausibility but rather for any sort of plausble deniabilyt that there was a problem with the test.

Yet that is precisely why the disparate impact test was put in place. To move the burden of evidence onto those creating the disparate impact. Remember, part of why Disparate Impact law was passed was because the courts had made proof of disparate treatment extremely difficult to show. In fact unlike the Ricci ruling, ANY "plausible" alternative given - even if racial bigotry was involved - was accepted as a viable defense

Kennedy simply moves the burden back to the plaintiff CONTRARY to Legislative intent.

And yet you are looking for plausible deniability just like Kennedy

Any of those avalable online - even if only through JStor?

degsme:

Kennedy simply moves the burden back to the plaintiff CONTRARY to Legislative intent.

How does he do that by saying the respondent didn't meet their burden of proof?

The disparate impact test wasn't applied because they found for the plantiffs under disparate treatment. If the court has made ant change in the law they have made it easier to prove disparate treatment. ie a respondent will have to show via a strong showing of the evidence that an adverse employment action was not racially motivated.

How does he do that by saying the respondent didn't meet their burden of proof?

Because under the TEXT of the law, there is no "burden of proof" on the respondant if they choose not to defend the test.

Kennedy essentially ruled (in a minority ruling) that the respondant could not opt to not defend the test unless they had "substantial evidence" they were going to get sued. IE unless they had been actually sued.

By modifying the Disparate Impact, Kennedy was able to deny its applicability and thus rule for Ricci even though Ricci really didn't have a case.

It was activism.

If the court has made ant change in the law they have made it easier to prove disparate treatment. ie a respondent will have to show via a strong showing of the evidence that an adverse employment action was not racially motivated.

No not at all. There is no actual precedent on the amount of evidence Ricci presented. Instead the ruling overturns to lower courts findings on the basis of Disparate Impact. All it does is cripple disparate impact by adding new text to the law.

I don't think so. Most of the journals are APA so they're available full-text through PsycArticles, which requires a paid subscription. Some (Personnel Psychology, for instance) are available through EbscoHost. I don't think JStor has any I/O Psychology journals. If you'd like, I can round up the abstracts for the articles I cited. I figured my post was long enough without them, though, so I didn't bother before. haha

It's enough for you, but not for any intelligent individual.