Employment testing
 |
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (March 2011) |
 |
This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (March 2011) |
Employment testing is the practice of administering written, oral or other tests as a means of determining the suitability or desirability of a job applicant. The premise is that if scores on a test correlate with job performance, then it is economically useful for the employer to select employees based on scores from that test.
Contents |
[edit] Legal context (United States)
The United States Supreme Court has decided several cases that have clarified the place of employment testing in the context of discrimination law. In particular, these cases have addressed the discriminatory use of tests when promoting employees by requiring tests beyond the education required for the job. A central finding in Griggs v. Duke Power Company was that the employer must demonstrate (or be prepared to demonstrate) that its selection process is job-related.[1]
Employers considering the use of employment tests, particularly knowledge and aptitude-based tests, should perform due diligence to assure that questions are reasonably related to the job; advice from counsel may be sensible. An example of "reasonably related" might be giving a math test to applicants for engineering positions because math is used in such jobs. To comply with the decision in Griggs, the employer must assure the test is a reasonable measure of job performance. Therefore, if the math questions were engineering-related, and not from other disciplines, and documents could prove that employees who lacked a reasonable knowledge of math capabilities would not succeed as engineers, then the examination would meet the Griggs test. Conversely, employers that require a receptionist to take a math test may be considered unreasonable because math is unrelated to the daily requirements of a receptionist's job duties. For all employment tests, common sense and reasonableness must apply.
[edit] Test types used
Different types of assessments may be used for employment testing, including personality tests, intelligence tests, work samples and assessment centers. Some correlate better with job performance than with others; employers often use more than one to maximize predictive power.
[edit] Personality tests
Personality tests may potentially be useful in personnel selection. Of the well-known [Big Five] personality traits, only conscientiousness correlates substantially with traditional measures of job performance, and that correlation is strong enough to be predictive.[2] However, other factors of personality can correlate substantially with non-traditional aspects of job performance, such as leadership and effectiveness in a team environment.[3] The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is also used.
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is a highly validated psychopathology test generally used in a clinical psychology setting that may reveal potential mental health disorders. Official MMPI-2 Description However, this can be considered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as the employer having knowledge of a medical condition prior to an offer of employment. This is an illegal basis for a hiring decision in the United States. Employers considering personality tests should focus on those that are designed for that purpose and do not provide any information regarding an applicant's mental health or stability.
Notable situations in which the MMPI may be used, and is sometimes mandated, are in final selection for police officers, fire fighters, and other security and emergency personnel, especially when the employees are required to carry weapons. In that context, an assessment of mental stability and fitness can be argued as "reasonably related" and necessary in the performance of the job.
[edit] Intelligence tests
Tests of general intelligence are said to correlate very highly with job performance.[4] If other factors are equal, supporters claim that a more intelligent person is able to perform a given job more efficiently. This is especially true in cognitive-loaded professions, although observed correlations are low due to range restriction (e.g., most brain surgeons are highly intelligent). Those opposed to the use of these tests note that there are substantial cultural effects on scores and that many prominent psychologists do not agree that there is a single measure of intelligence (e.g., Professor Howard Gardner).
[edit] Job-knowledge tests
"Job-knowledge tests are used in situations where applicants must already possess a body of learned information prior to being hired." - U.S. Office of Personnel Management[5] Job-knowledge tests are particularly useful in situations where applicants are required to have specialized knowledge or technical know-how that can only be acquired through extended periods of either experience or training. Examples of such fields are computer programming, law and financial management. Licensing exams and certification programs are also types of job-knowledge tests. Passing such exams indicates competence in the field's subject or area. A major consideration of job-knowledge tests is validity. Tests must be representative of the tested field, otherwise complaints in the form of litigation can be brought against the test-giver.
[edit] Situational judgment tests
Situational judgment tests are commonly used as employee-selection and -screening tools and have been developed to predict employment success.[6] These tests present hypothetical yet realistic scenarios in a multiple-choice format, and applicants are asked to indicate what they would do in handling a difficult job-related situation effectively.[7] Responses are scored in accordance to the level of effectiveness, rather than right or wrong.
Situational judgment items measure the suitability of applicants for employment by assessing their abilities, such as in solving problems, service orientation and striving for achievement.[8] These tests screen for candidates with key attributes and assess their capabilities to perform and respond to job-related situations. Therefore, results from situational judgment tests provide more indicative and job-specific information concerning an applicant's competencies, which may not be initially apparent in their resume or during an interview.
Situational judgment tests are becoming increasingly popular for employee selection in customer service positions such as sales, retail and hospitality.
[edit] See also
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988)
- Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 657 (1989),
- Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Objective test
- Projective test
- Psychological testing
- Situational judgement test
[edit] References
- ^ Griggs v. Duke Power Co. :401 U.S. 424 (1971)
- ^ Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
- ^ Hogan, R. (2006). Personality and the fate of organizations.
- ^ Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162–173.[1]
- ^ "Assessment Decision Guide". Retrieved on 2008-08-14.
- ^ Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Staffing in the 21st century: New challenges and strategic opportunities. Journal of Management, 32, 868-897.
- ^ Lievens, F., Peeters, H., & Schollaert, E. (2008). Situational judgment tests: A review of recent research. Personnel Review, 37, 426-441.
- ^ Whetzel, D. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). Situational judgment tests: An overview of current research. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 188-202.
