Abstract
Past attempts to predict the salary of faculty have been flawed by the use of rank, a potential source of bias, but removing rank from the equation seriously reduces prediction. This research studies the degree of bias in rank. Discriminant analysis produced a solution that correctly predicted rank 69% of the time for the 1083 faculty members used in the study. Among teaching and research faculty, there was a significant relationship between the direction of prediction error and gender. For women, the number of times they were predicted to have a rank higher than their actual rank exceeded the opposite condition by 2 1/2 times; for men, there was a slight tendency for the opposite. Methods were suggested for using the information administratively to correct problems. Further, recommendations are made to use the results to study salary-bias problems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allard, C. A. (1984).Assessing Faculty Salary Equity (Report No. 20). Tallahassee, FL: The Association for Institutional Research.
Braskamp, L. A., Muffo, J. A., and Langston, I. W. (1978). Determining salary equity: policies, procedures, and problems.Journal of Higher Education 49: 231–246.
Carter, R. D., Das, R. S., Garnello, A. H., and Charboneau, R. C. (1984). Multivariate alternatives to regression analysis in the evaluation of salary equity-parity.Research in Higher Education 20: 167–179.
Cohen, J., and Cohen, P. (1975).Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analyses for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum.
Craik v.Minnesota State University Bd., 731 F.2d 465 (8th Cir. 1984).
Downey, R. G., McIntyre, P. E., and Hoyt, D. P. (1984). Development of a faculty wage administration process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Fort Worth, Texas.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1981).Laws Administered by EEOC. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Hengstler, D. D., and McLaughlin, G. W. (1985). Statistical issues and concerns in court cases. In W. Rosenthal and B. Yancey (eds.),The Use of Data in Discrimination Issues Cases, pp. 65–82. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hengstler, D. D., Muffo, J. A., and Hengstler, G. A. (1982). Salary equity studies: the state of the art. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 219 043).
Presseisen v.Swarthmore College, 442 F. Supp. 539 (E.D. Oa. 1977), aff'd. 582 F.2d 1275 (3rd Cir. 1978).
Ramsay, G. A. (1979). A generalized multiple regression model for predicting college faculty salaries and estimating sex bias. In T. R. Pezzullo and B. E. Brittingham (eds.),Salary Equity pp. 37–53. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Scott, E. (1977).Higher Education Salary Evaluation Kit, A Recommended Method for Flagging Women and Minority Persons for Whom There is Apparent Salary Inequality and a Comparison of Results and Costs of Several Suggested Methods. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Professors.
Szafran, R. F. (1984).Universities and Women Faculty: Why Some Organizations Discriminate More than Others. New York: Praeger.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Riggs, M.L., Downey, R.G., McIntyre, P.E. et al. Using discriminant analysis to predict faculty rank. Res High Educ 25, 365–376 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992132
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992132