|
|
The Achiever has been established and validated in accordance with the procedures described in "Standards of Educational Psychological Tests and Manuals," which is referred to in paragraph (2) 1607.6, "Minimum Standards for Evaluation," Federal Register Volume 35, dated Saturday, August 1, 1970. It is therefore not discriminatory and is in compliance with E.E.O.C. and other Federal Regulations.
The Reliability and Validity Manual published by Achievement Tec. establishes the legal and written confirmation that this evaluation was professionally developed and validated in accordance with both Construct and Criterion methods of validation. Achievement Tec. will defend the validation or content of the Achiever for any company using this assessment, but cannot assist any company as a result of the misuse or abuse of the Achiever. There are four forms of validity:
- CONSTRUCT refers to the extent in which dimensions with similar names on different tests relate to one another. Two things that correlate highly are not necessarily identical, but do provide reassurance that they are related and are a "construct" or part of the makeup (like honesty, dependability, sociability, etc.) of an individual as related to actual job performance.
- CONCURRENT is that approach whereby people who are successful within a given job within a given company or industry are evaluated and generally grouped TOP THIRD, MIDDLE THIRD, BOTTOM THIRD. The assessment scores of the people who fit each of these ranges are then compiled and Job Benchmark Standards of the TOP THIRD are used to hire, train or manage.
- PREDICTIVE occurs when the employer hires people for a job based on normal hiring procedures (interviewing, reference checks, education/experience, etc.) and at the same time has them complete the assessment, but does not utilize any data from it in the hiring decision. Within six months, or any appropriate period of time later, the assessment is scored, and benchmarks established of the people who were hired in the new jobs who are still with the employer and whom the employer considers successful. Job Benchmark Standards are thus established through the Predictive approach.
- CONTENT represents job function testing, i.e., typing, mathematics, design, CPA exams, physical work endurance, etc. Content validation is not the method utilized by Achievement Tec, Inc., since we do not provide content assessments to the marketplace.
Profilers recommends that an organization establish and utilize a consistent standard hiring process when making hiring decisions. Information should be gathered in each step of the standard hiring process to have specific and measurable data to utilize in making a final hiring decision. The assessment used should count no more than one-third of the hiring decisions. The preliminary interview, job history check, in-depth interview results and evaluation of education, experience and other pertinent factors should be considered as well.
Under the Uniform Federal Guidelines adopted in the 1970's, validation of any part of the hiring process (assessments included) was no longer deemed necessary unless a company was not meeting the 4/5th Rule in either hiring or promotional practices. Consequently, there are three optional approaches to using assessments:
- Establish your own successful employee Job Benchmark Standards by conducting a concurrent validation by job classification. By tying job-related criteria to the aptitudes and personality dimensions of the assessment, the ultimate in validation and job relativity is assured. Also, the Job Benchmark Standards simplify the interpretation and use of the assessment in the hiring process, since it establishes a model for hiring, promotion and training purposes.
- Establish Job Benchmark Standards by job classification by answering job-related questions on the requirements of the job. Profilers PC software will then develop Job Benchmark Standards based on the requirements of the job and traits required in the individual to successfully perform the job.
- Use of Job Benchmark Standards comprised of successful people in jobs across the United States. Then, after a reasonable period of time, compare the successful people selected to the Benchmark Standards used for that job for confirmation of correctness and/or modification of the benchmark standards.
The in-depth validation identified above is not necessary if you are in compliance with the 4/5th Rule described below. This rule was designated by the E.E.O.C. as a computation tool to establish a basis to show whether or not a company is having an adverse impact in their hiring practices.
EXAMPLE: Out of 120 job applicants (comprised of 80 white and 40 minority), 48 whites were hired and 12 minorities were hired.
48 out of 80 white applicants = 60%
12 out of 40 minority applicants = 30%
This hiring pattern results in adverse selection of minorities, since 1/2 as many minorities are hired as whites (or 30/60), whereas the hiring ratio must equal 4/5th as many minorities as whites.
People often ask: How do you know the candidate is being candid? Or, how do we know the results accurately describe the candidate? Many assessments on the market today do not answer these concerns. We can! The assessment reveals the candidates’ level of candor and objectivity in the final two scales called validity.
We have divided this feature into two parts: Distortion and Equivocation. The Distortion score indicates how objectively or fairly the candidate has assessed his/her behavioral tendencies. The Equivocation score indicates how many neutral or non-revealing answers the candidate has given.
- Distortion: Sometimes there is a tendency to avoid complete candor about oneself, for fear of jeopardizing the job opportunity. Frequently, the candidates will over-analyze the questions, believing they “know” what the questions are “really asking”, then respond with the “right” answer. Their intent is more often to impress, than to deny weaknesses.
On our scale, any candidate whose distortion score is over a certain limit should be carefully considered. More than likely, this candidate has answered the personality questions with what they hope is a socially acceptable response, intending to lead the employer into believing that they may be the right candidate.
- Equivocation: By definition it means: deliberately ambiguous. By choosing several neutral questions throughout the assessment the candidate has diluted the results, and a less revealing report will result. Our assessments will indicate if there have been an excessive number of ambivalent answers
The Achiever is the updated assessment previously titled The Profile. It was developed and validated by James E. Moore, Ph.D., formerly of Purdue University, along with other prominent psychologists, for Communications Institute of America of Dallas, known today as Achievement Tec, Inc. The assistance from several technical experts, psychologists and medical doctors has made the assessments what they are today.
Employers have been forced to defend an ever increasing number of negligent hiring lawsuits that seek damages for crimes committed by their own employees. Those crimes range from rape of a customer in her home by a delivery driver to assaults, homicides, and theft against co-workers and customers alike. Because of such incidences, recent legal trends have strongly supported the use of pre-employment testing.
These lawsuits are based on the argument that the employer negligently placed an applicant with dangerous tendencies, which should have been easily discovered by reasonable due diligence, into an employment situation where it was foreseeable that the employee posed a threat to others. While employers cannot safely ask questions like, "How often do you have fits of uncontrolled homicidal rage?", they can still minimize their legal exposure through the use of pre-employment assessments. These assessments provide a way to document evidence that the employer did made reasonable and careful investigation into the applicant’s suitability.
It is important to note that not all assessments are suitable for use as pre-employment assessments. For example, psychological assessments that were designed for clinical or diagnostic use should not be used other than in situations where the jobs could endanger the public safety such as police officers, fire fighters and airline pilots. The courts have consistently ruled against the general use of those psychological assessments in the business environment.
The pre-employment assessments published by Achievement Tec. have been through numerous FDIC audits as a result of their use in banks. EEOC offices in several cities are familiar with Achievement Tec. systems, especially the EEOC office in Dallas, Texas, which maintains an extensive file on their assessments.
The Achiever has been reviewed by the Employment Standards Administration Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, an agency of the U. S. Department of Labor. That office stated that there is no need to have the Achiever validated within each company because there is only a slight possibility of an adverse effect on a protected group, and in particular, because there are no passing or failing scores.
Despite these numerous reviews by Federal agencies, Achievement Tec. maintains validity of its programs through the construct validation process, and ongoing concurrent validation studies for clients. The use of these validation processes has meant that no employer has received an adverse finding for using Achievement Tec. systems.
Utilizing the Achiever properly ensures protection against E.E.O.C. problems and adverse impact. When the Achiever is properly implemented and utilized in conjunction with other standard hiring and interviewing procedures, it strengthens the employers' position of taking affirmative action to ensure that applicants and employees are treated fairly without regard to race, color, age, religion, sex or national origin.
One last issue you should be aware of is that test publishers are not required to defend their assessments or even provide the necessary evidence to support their validity studies. While the test publisher would seem to have a professional obligation to do this, it would be of little value for them to comply if their validity studies did not meet the generally accepted professional standards as required by the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selections Procedures. Reputable test publishers such as Achievement Tec. will provide that information and will also stand ready to defend their validity studies.
|
