> Quibble about my word choice all you'd like, but use a direct IQ test at your own peril.

Insofar as its true that such a peril exists, the same peril applies for any "test that acts as a good proxy" for an IQ test, since if it does so it will have the same unequal racial impact (because if it didn't, it wouldn't be a good proxy) and, therefore, require the exact same evidence of predictive power with regard to job performance as a "direct IQ test". So the substitution you suggest achieves nothing.

Protecting against the "peril" associated with a "direct IQ test" isn't a matter of choosing a "good proxy" instead (since that does nothing to reduce the "peril"), its a matter of documenting the business justification -- the evidence that the test is a good predictor of job performance.

Upvoted.

This is a sound strategy to take. I wish I could convince people to take it.

If you can document the business justification then by all means use an IQ test directly in hiring decisions.

Son, you've got the wrong attitude.