Plain Talk About Employment Testing From Bob Brady, a Straight Shooter
(And from George, making it two straight shooters — hopefully)
Back when Michael Harris was a contributor to this blog, employment testing was a fairly common topic here, and naturally so, given his background as an industrial/organizational psychologist.
Unlike Michael, I’m not particularly well acquainted with the ins and outs of test design and validation.
But it doesn’t take a PhD in psychology (or a law degree) to understand the basic tension between the potential benefit to the hiring process from valid tests, properly used, and the potential harm from tests of questionable validity, or improperly used tests.
Nor is it that difficult to map out a strategy for effective and lawful testing.
That’s why I really like what BLR founder and publisher Bob Brady has to say on the subject. He’s the “straight shooter” I refer to in the title of this post.
Bob says
Bob starts with this observation:
If you lined up 10 HR professionals, you would probably get 10 different answers to the question, “Should we use employment tests?” And their CEO’s would probably give 10 different answers.
He then states his opinion: “Tests are a very good thing, well worth their modest cost.”
After a brief discussion of the “venerable Wonderlic test” and its interesting history, Bob takes on the controversial aspects of employment testing in a refreshingly common sense manner:
Many managers are reluctant to use tests because of concerns about their legality and their validity.
Those are serious issues that have to be investigated and resolved, but there is almost universal agreement that tests are a great way to get underneath the surface veneer of an applicant and find things out before making a hiring mistake. . . . The legal regulations governing tests are not that complex.
Source
HR Daily Advisor: “Preemployment tests: Do They Work?”
George’s Take
Well, I must both agree and disagree with Bob. The legal situation looks pretty darn complex — not to mention frustrating and expensive — once you’re in the middle of a lawsuit with a guy like Michael Harris as an expert witness on one side and another guy like him in a similar role on the other.
On the other hand, if you do your homework before implementing testing, you can greatly reduce the likelihood that you find yourself in such a lawsuit.
The first step is to determine whether the test is considered a medical test that must comply with disability law restrictions on such tests. (Probably not — but this has been an issue in some instances.)
Next, determine whether the test has a disparate impact on individuals based on any legally protected characteristic such as race, sex, age, etc. If not, the test’s validity is not that important as a legal matter.
As a practical matter, however, it may be a business mistake to use a test that cannot meet established standards of validity. Doing so means needlessly screening out qualified people — and/or not screening out less qualified people. In other words, the test is giving you a false sense of objectivity, and is not doing what it is supposed to be doing — helping improve decision-making.
If the test does have a disparate impact, validity is essential to the lawfulness of its use. Do not simply accept a blanket statement that a test has been validated. Validity does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, the test’s validity must be determined in connection with a particular job’s requirements. If the job isn’t rocket science, the test shouldn’t be either.
Related Posts
“Disparate impact law, Part I – where it all began”
“Disparate TREATMENT vs. Disparate IMPACT”
“This Test Did Not Pass Labor Department’s Standards”
“Dial To Pay $3M for Strength Test with Disparate Impact on Women”
“Employment Testing: A Diversity of Views”
“Update: Testing 1, 2, 3….ADA and personality testing; Appeals Court Overturns Earlier Decision”
“More on personality testing — from the bowels of our archives”
Search
for jobs and careers at JobCentral.
Photo credit: iwouldstay via flickr
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed or by email.
[...] Plain Talk About Employment Testing From Bob Brady, a Straight Shooter Which is not to say I oppose testing of applicants; just that I’d give it a lawyer’s yellow light — proceed with caution . . . [...]