About the general application of cognitive ability and personality testing ...
Allan Tudehope wrote <<..in part .. I snipped some off >>
>
> If all employers conducted validation studies on the tests they require
> their applicants to undergo then perhaps one might say that they have placed
> their use of pre-employment screening tests in a legally defensible
> position. That is, they would be able to demonstrate a clear relationship
> between predictor and criterion in a court of law.
>
>
> My question (can of worms) is simply whether managers can afford to continue
> to use personality or CA tests without knowing what a validity coefficient
> or job analysis is? Furthermore, while it may be necessary to determine that
> a test (any test) has demonstrated robust validity and reliability in its
> development, is this sufficient to make such a test legally defensible? My
> own feeling is that unless a test instrument has been validated against a
> specific job role in the context of the organisation's climate, culture and
> strategy, the answer is no.
>
> I understand fully that pre-employment testing is big business and that many
> fortunes have been made on the premise that personality testing can select
> top performing employees. Despite being a psychologist myself, I believe
> that managers should not place unquestioning faith in such sacred cows.
>
> Allan Tudehope
> The Enhancing Performance Group
> Perth, Western Australia.
>
Schmidt and Hunters research on the generality of cognitive ability test
validity
addresses this concern.
We (I/O psychologists and related co-conspirators)
used to think that a CA test had a different validity for each group, and in
each application. Therefore, employers should conduct their own validity
studies, when they were poorly equipped to do so. The principal constraint
they faced was small sample size (other technical concerns notwithstanding).
Schmidt and Hunter showed that CA tests are consistently valid across
groups and jobs (that is, we can safely reject r = .00). To say it in short,
if there's thinking on the job, using a cognitive ability test to screen
potential
employees is a good idea. See Schmidt F, Hunter J in 1998 Psychological
Bulletin review article.
Well, CA score means DO vary across ethnicity in U.S. samples,
(as noted early in this discussion)
so using a CA test may have
the effect of improving the employment chances of
"asian" heritage and "european" heritage folks over those
of "latino" and "african" heritage folks.
In my (nonlawyer) understanding, if a test has job-related validity it
can continue to be used by the employer even if it has the apparent
disparate impact on ethnicity. Only if plaintiffs are able to locate and
recommend a test that is also valid and that has less adverse impact than the CA
test,
will the employer be required to switch tests.
More importantly, the validity generalization research has pushed us away from
recommending each and every employer validity the test in that location because
the small sample size results are not robust.
So .... I don't care if all managers understand job analysis or validity.
Instead I care that all managers know that current job information and valid
testing are critical for serving the dual purposes of getting the best talent
for
the firm and keeping on the right side of the laws and courts. If they don't
know the technical details of how that is done, that's where the human resource
professionals and consultants earn their keep.
On personality testing, I recall reading work by Dr. Leatta Hough of PDRI in
Minneapolis, who (with many others) summarized personality research in
relation to job performance. She suggested that some personality dimensions
consistently correlated with job success at least for sales and managerial
samples.
Schmidt and Hunter's 1998 Psych Bull article adds to this by addressing the
marginal
validity of personality tests (and other kinds) beyond cognitive ability
testing.
So we should HOPE for widespread use of CA tests, and somewhat more selective
application of personality testing. And, we should hope that managers know
enough
about these issues to at least recognize professional evidence and advice, if
not the
technical guts of validation research.
None of us should place unquestioning faith in any one hiring tool, as the
perfect
tool does not exist. Instead, we build our confidence by using several,
relatively
independent, if individually flawed, predictors of success
(again, discussed in Schmidt and Hunter, 1998).
The generality of CA and personality tests for employment screening in the US is
pretty darn good. It would be reasonable to expect that such tests would also
work
in other places where those aggressive Brits colonized, left English (the main
test developer's language) , and democratic government/economic capitalism took
hold.
Certainly Australia.
As to their generality in other settings - I still join Allan in his cautious
skepticism.
Cordially,
Howard Miller
professor and consultant
Query: do the Australians have a legal process parallel to the one
defined in the US by the Civil Rights Act (1964, 1991), the Uniform Guidelines,
and
the Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) Supreme Court decision?
FYI, Cynthia Fisher and James Shaw of Bond University have an excellent
HRM text book that touches on much of this (it's coauthored with Lyle Shoenfeldt
of
the U.S.)