Employment testing

Background

As long as there have been employers and employees, employers have looked to various means to pre-qualify applicants for various jobs or positions, or test existing employees to help determine which employee or employees may best qualified for a new position or promotion. Although some employers have misused testing as a discriminatory tool, most employers sincerely want a win-win situation for their employees.

If employees are evaluated and determined to have the right background, personality, education and experience for the job, they are more likely to perform better for the employer and have a higher degree of personal job satisfaction. The United States Supreme Court has handed down key decisions regarding the use of employment testing, in particular, for the discriminatory use of tests when considering employees for promotion by requiring tests beyond the education that may be required for the job. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co..

Employers considering using employment tests, particularly knowledge and aptitude-based tests, should do due diligence in assuring questions are reasonably related to the job, and should seek advise from legal counsel. An example of "Reasonably related" might be giving a math test to engineering applicants, as math is used as part of the job. In order to comply with Griggs, the employer must assure the test is a "reasonable measure of job performance". Therefore, it the math questions were engineering related, and not from other disciplines, and it was documented that employees that lacked a reasonable level of the knowledge of math capabilities did not succeed as engineers, the test would likely meet the Griggs guidelines. Conversely, requiring a math test for a receptionist may be considered unreasonable as it may be generally unrelated to the daily requirements of the job. In all applications, common sense and reasonableness must apply.

Personality Tests were not the focus of Griggs, although some tests have been challenged, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) when used in general pre-employment screening. The MMPI is a highly validated psychometric test generally used in a clinical setting. As such, some questions on the test that may reveal potential mental health disorders, can be considered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as the employer having knowledge of a medical condition prior to an offer of employment. Employers considering personality tests should focus on those designed for that purpose and do not provide any information regarding an applicant's mental health or stability.

Notable exceptions, where the MMPI may be used, and sometimes mandated, are in final selection for Police officers, Fire Fighters, and other security and emergency personnel, especially when required to carry a weapon. A justifiable need to asses one's mental stability and fitness can be argued as "reasonably related" and necessary in the performance of the job.

IQ Tests can present a mine field of problems and are generally avoided by most employers. If an employer were to set a minimum I.Q. of 105, for an example, they would have to be able to substantiate and prove an applicant with an I.Q. of 104 was not suitable for the job but applicants with a 105 I.Q. were significantly different enough to do the job well. Since such a threshold is likely arbitrary at best, most employers do not care to go down such slippery slope.

NOTE: This information is best applied in the United States, as it pertains to U.S. laws and references are to United States Court decisions.

Reference

• Griggs v. Duke Power Co. :401 U.S. 424 (1971), 1971
• 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