Industrial/Organizational Psychology
What this domain tests
I/O content on a jurisprudence exam focuses on workplace applications - selection, validation, performance appraisal, coaching, and organizational development - and on the ethical question unique to this setting: who is the client, the organization or the individual employee?
Core rules and concepts
- Clarify at intake who the client is and what will be shared with management (APA 3.07, 3.10). Employees should hear the limits of confidentiality from you, not from HR.
- Selection tools must be validated for the intended use. The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (29 CFR Part 1607) frame adverse impact analysis; the 4/5 (80%) rule is a screening heuristic, not a legal verdict.
- Title VII, ADA Title I (no pre-offer medical exams; reasonable accommodation), the ADEA, and GINA constrain what employers may ask and what you may use.
- Test data: APA 9.04 governs release; APA 9.11 requires maintaining test security. Give managers interpreted results, not raw scores and item content.
- Coaching is not psychotherapy. Diagnosing or treating an employee under a coaching contract is a scope and consent violation.
Worked example
A selection battery passes 70% of White applicants and 45% of Black applicants. The ratio is 0.45 ÷ 0.70 = 0.64, below 0.80, so adverse impact is indicated. Reasoning: the employer now needs validation evidence tying the test to job performance, and should consider equally valid alternatives with less adverse impact. Using a clinical personality inventory designed for diagnosis compounds the problem.
Traps that cost marks
- Believing business settings are outside the Ethics Code.
- Handing raw scores or individual profiles to supervisors.
- Treating the 80% rule as the whole legal analysis.
- Relying on outdated norms or unvalidated vendor claims.