Lewis v. Chicago, 2005: Court decision on cut scores and content validity

Add this course to my shopping cart

Reference Title: Lewis v. City of Chicago, No. 98 C 5596, 2005 WL 693618 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2005)
Author: U.S. District Court
Publication Type: Legal (Court Decision)
Publication Date: 2005
Course Level: Advanced
Credits: 2
Price: $20.00
About This Course: In this US District Court decision, the Court discusses cut-scores, test reliability, and content validity in finding a firefighter test violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
  1. Overview of this CE Home-Study Program
  2. Information About the Course
    1. Educational Objectives
    2. Target Audience
    3. Schedule
    4. Cost and Refund/Cancellation Policy
    5. Author Credentials
    6. Number of CE Credits Offered
    7. Location and Format
    8. Detailed Description of Program Material
  3. Conflict of Interest Statement

1. Overview of this CE program (top)

This home study course entails the independent study of the court opinion regarding Lewis v. Chicago (U.S. District Court, 3/22/05), followed by the completion of a multiple-choice test on-line.Participants who receive a passing grade of 75% or higher on the test will receive 2 CE credits. Failing participants may retake the test as often as they wish at no additional charge, and receive CE credit when they do pass.

A copy of the court opinion needed for this course is available here Lewis v. Chicago (U.S. District Court, 3/22/05), at no cost.

More detailed information on the content of this article is given in section 2h below.

APR Testing Services is approved by the American Psychological Association to sponsor continuing education for psychologists. APR Testing Services maintains responsibility for this program and its content.

2.a Educational Objectives (top)

Upon completion of this home study program, the participant will be able to:

  1. Basic information about the case, including the parties and the alleged violation of law.
  2. Identify facts of the case, including what test was involved and how it was used.
  3. Describe the evidence and arguments put forth by the parties.
  4. Summarize the decision of the court and the reasons given for the decision.

2.b Target Audience (top)

This CE program is intended for psychologists who hold a doctoral degree. The course may be taken by other interested professionals (e.g.,senior human resource executives and consultants; upper-level managers).

2.c Schedule (top)

Access to program registration and post-test is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

2.d Cost and Refund/Cancellation Policy (top)

The fee for this home-study program is $20, which is $10 per CE credit. The fee is fully refundable for 60 days or until the post-test is taken, whichever comes first.

A copy of the court opinion needed for this course is available here Lewis v. Chicago (U.S. District Court, 3/22/05), at no cost.

2.e Author Credentials (top)

This is a memorandum opinion and order released by the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois regarding Lewis v. City of Chicago (3/22/05).

2.f Number of CE Credits Offered (top)

Participants who complete this course by taking and passing the multiple-choice test will receive 2 CE credits.

2.g Location and Format (top)

This activity requires independent home-based study of a court opinion (Lewis v. Chicago). Following completion of the reading material, participants complete an Internet-based multiple-choice post-test on its content.

2.h Detailed Description of Program Material (top)

Publication citation:

Lewis v. City of Chicago, No. 98 C 5596, 2005 WL 693618 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2005).

From IPMAAC.com:

Over 26,000 applicants took the entry-level Firefighter exam, about 21,000 of whom scored 65 or higher. Applicants who scored from 65 to 88 were rated as "Qualified." Applicants (N = 1,782) who scored from 89 to 100 were rated as "Well Qualified." The test developer recommended a cutoff score of 65. For administrative reasons, the City selected Well Qualified candidates first. When the pool of Well Qualified candidates was exhausted, the City selected Qualified candidates in random order. The Court found that giving preference to the Well Qualified band had an adverse impact against blacks and that the City failed to prove that the exam and the cutoff score were job-related and consistent with business necessity. Therefore, the City's selection procedures were discriminatory in violation of Title VII. (Summary by Lance Seberhagen.)

3. Conflict of Interest Statement (top)

APR Testing Services (APR) has no known conflict of interest with respect to this CE program. APR has not received any commercial support for this CE program.