Methods for Assessing and Selecting Employees

Employee Screening and Assessment

1. EVALUATION OF WRITTEN MATERIALS

- The first step in the screening process involves the evaluation of written materials, such as applications,
application cover letters, and resumes.
- The main purpose of the application and resume is to collect biographical information (education, work
experience, and outstanding work or school accomplishments).
- Such data are believed to be among the best predictors of future job performance (Feldman & Klich,
1991; Knouse, 1994; Owens, 1976). However, it is often difficult to assess constructs such as work
experience to use it in employee screening and selection. Researchers have suggested that work
experience can be measured in both quantitative (e.g., time in a position; number of times performing a
task) and qualitative (e.g., level of complexity or challenge in a job) terms (Quiñones, 2004; Quiñones,
Ford, & Teachout, 1995; Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998).
- First impressions play a big role in selection decisions. Because written materials are usually the first
contact a potential employer has with a job candidate, the impressions of an applicant’s credentials
received from a resume, cover letter, or application are very important (Soroko, 2012)

Weighted application forms - assign different weights to each piece of information on the form. The weights are
determined through detailed research, conducted by the organization, to determine the relationship between
specific bits of biographical data, often referred to as biodata, and criteria of success on the job (Breaugh, 2009;
Mael, 1991, Stokes, Mumford, & Owens, 1994)

- Another type of information from job applicants is a work sample. Often a work sample consists of a
written sample (e.g., a report or document), but artists, architects, and software developers might submit
a “portfolio” of work products/samples. Research suggests that work samples can be valuable in
predicting future job performance (Jackson, Harris, Ashton, McCarthy, & Tremblay, 2000; Lance,
Johnson, Douthitt, Bennett, & Harville, 2000; Roth, Bobko, & McFarland, 2005). Work samples can
also be developed into standardized tests,

2. REFERENCES OR LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION

- reference checks and letters of recommendation can provide four types of information: (1) employment
and educational history, (2) evaluations of the applicant’s character, (3) evaluations of the applicant’s
job performance, and (4) the recommender’s willingness to rehire the applicant (Cascio, 1987).
- There are important reasons that references and letters of recommendation may have limited
importance in employee selection. First, because applicants can usually choose their own sources for
references and recommendations, it is unlikely that they will supply the names of persons
who will give bad recommendations. Therefore, letters of recommendation tend to be distorted in a
highly positive direction—so positive that they may be useless in distinguishing among applicants.
- One interesting study found that both longer reference letters and letters written by persons with more
positive dispositions tended to be more favorably evaluated than either short letters or those written by
less “positive” authors (Judge & Higgins, 1998).

3. EMPLOYMENT TESTING

- After the evaluation of the biographical information available from resumes, application forms, or other
sources, the next step in comprehensive employee screening programs is employment testing.
- Today, the use of tests for employment screening and placement has expanded greatly. A considerable
percentage of large companies and most government agencies routinely use some form of employment
tests to measure a wide range of characteristics that are predictive of successful job performance

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF PERSONNEL SCREENING AND TESTING

METHODS

Two critical concepts in measurement:

1. Reliability
 - refers to the stability of a measure over time or the consistency of the measure.
- also refers to the agreement between two or more assessments made of the same event or behavior, such as
when two interviewers independently evaluate the appropriateness of a job candidate for a particular position.
In other words, a measurement process is said to possess “reliability” if we can “rely” on the scores or
measurements to be stable, consistent, and free of random error.
For example, if we administer a test to a job applicant, we would expect to get essentially the
same score on the test if it is taken at two different points of time (and the applicant did not do
anything to improve test performance in between).

Methods for estimating the reliability of a screening instrument:

a) Test–retest reliability
- a method of determining the stability of a measurement instrument by administering the same
measure to the same people at two different times and then correlating the scores
- a particular test or other measurement instrument is administered to the same individual at two different
times, usually involving a one- to two-week interval between testing sessions. Scores on the first test are
then correlated with those on the second test. If the correlation is high (a correlation coefficient approaching
+1.0), evidence of reliability (at least stability over time) is empirically established

b) Parallel Form
- a method of establishing the reliability of a measurement instrument by correlating scores on two different but
equivalent versions of the same instrument
- Here two equivalent tests are constructed, each of which presumably measures the same construct but using
different items or questions. Test-takers are administered both forms of the instrument.

c) Internal Consistency
- a common method of establishing a measurement instrument’s reliability by examining how the
various items of the instrument are intercorrelated
- If a test is reliable, each item should measure the same general construct, and thus performance on one
item should be consistent with performance on all other items. Two specific methods are used to determine
internal consistency. The first is to divide the test items into two equal parts and correlate the summed
score on the first half of the items with that on the second half. This is referred to as split-half reliability. A
second method, which involves numerous calculations (and which is more commonly used), is to determine
the average intercorrelation among all items of the test. The resulting coefficient, referred to as Cronbach’s
alpha, is an estimate of the test’s internal consistency

2. VALIDITY

- a concept referring to the accuracy of a measurement instrument and its ability to make accurate inferences
about a criterion
- refers to the accuracy of inferences or projections we draw from measurements. Validity refers to whether a
set of measurements allows accurate inferences or projections about “something else.” That “something else”
can be a job applicant’s standing on some characteristic or ability, it can be future job success, or it can be
whether an employee is meeting performance standards
- In the context of employee screening, the term validity most often refers to whether scores on a particular test
or screening procedure accurately project future job performance.
- Validity refers to the quality of specific inferences or projections; therefore, validity for a specific
measurement process (e.g., a specific employment test) can vary depending on what criterion is being predicted.
Therefore, an employment test might be a valid predictor of job performance, but not a valid predictor of
another criterion such as rate of absenteeism.

o VALIDITY EVIDENCE

I. Content Validity
- refers to whether a predictor measurement process (e.g., test items or interview questions) adequately sample
important job behaviors and elements involved in performing a job
- the ability of the items in a measurement instrument to measure adequately the various characteristics
needed to perform a job
II. CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
- refers to whether a predictor test, such as a pencil-and-paper test of mechanical ability used to screen school
bus mechanics, actually measures what it is supposed to measure—(a) the abstract construct of “mechanical
ability” and (b) whether these measurements yield accurate predictions of job performance.
III. CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY
- is a third type of validity evidence and is empirically demonstrated by the relationship between test scores and
some measurable criterion of job success, such as a measure of work output or quality.

TWO common ways that predictor–criterion correlations:

1. The first is the follow-up method (often referred to as predictive validity). Here, the screening test is
administered to applicants without interpreting the scores and without using them to select among applicants.
Once the applicants become employees, criterion measures such as job performance assessments are
collected. If the test instrument is valid, the test scores should correlate with the criterion measure.
Once there is evidence of the predictive validity of the instrument, test scores are used to select the
applicants for jobs. The obvious advantage of the predictive validity method is that it demonstrates how
scores on the screening instrument actually relate to future job performance. The major drawback to this
approach is the time that it takes to establish validity. During this validation period, applicants are tested, but
are not hired based on their test scores.
2. The present-employee method (also termed concurrent validity), the test is given to current employees,
and their scores are correlated with some criterion of their current performance. Again, a relationship
between test scores and criterion scores supports the measure’s validity. Once there is evidence of concurrent
validity, a comparison of applicants’ test scores with the incumbents’ scores is possible. Although the
concurrent validity method leads to a quicker estimate of validity, it may not be as accurate an assessment of
criterion-related validity as the predictive method because the job incumbents represent a select group and
their test performance is likely to be high, with a restricted range of scores. In other words, there are no test
scores for the “poor” job performers, such as workers who were fired or quit their jobs or applicants who
were not chosen for jobs. Interestingly, available research suggests that the estimates of validity derived from
both methods are generally comparable (Barrett, Phillips, & Alexander, 1981).

 TYPES OF EMPLOYEE SCREENING TESTS

The majority of employee screening and selection instruments are standardized tests that have been
subjected to research aimed at demonstrating their validity and reliability. Most also contain information to
ensure that they are administered, scored, and interpreted in a uniform manner. The alternative to the use of
standardized tests is for the organization to construct a test for a particular job or class of jobs and conduct its
own studies of the test’s reliability and validity. Although many of these tests are published in the research
literature, there has been quite a bit of growth in consulting organizations that assist companies in testing and
screening. These organizations employ I/O psychologists to create screening tests and other assessments that
are proprietary and used in their consulting work. More and more, companies are outsourcing their personnel
testing work to these consulting firms.

Test Formats
Test formats, or the ways in which tests are administered, can vary greatly. Several distinctions are important
when categorizing employment tests.

Individual versus group tests—Individual tests are administered to only one person at a time. In
individual tests, the test administrator is usually more involved than in a group test. Typically,
tests that require some kind of sophisticated apparatus, such as a driving simulator, or tests that require
constant supervision are administered individually, as are certain intelligence and personality tests.
Group tests are designed to be administered simultaneously to more than one person, with the
administrator usually serving as only a test monitor. The obvious advantage to group tests is the
 reduced cost for administrator time. More and more, tests of all types are being administered online,
so the distinction between individual and group testing is becoming blurred, as many applicants can
complete screening instruments online simultaneously.
Speed versus power tests—Speed tests have a fixed time limit. An important focus of a speed test is the
number of items completed in the time period provided. A typing test and many of the scholastic
achievement tests are examples of speed tests. A power test allows the test-taker sufficient time to
complete all items. Typically, power tests have difficult items, with a focus on the percentage of items
answered correctly.
Paper-and-pencil versus performance tests—“Paper-and-pencil tests” refers to both paper versions of
tests and online tests, which require some form of written reply, in either a forced choice or an open-
ended, “essay” format. Many employee screening tests, and nearly all tests in schools, are of this
format. Performance tests, such as typing tests and tests of manual dexterity or grip strength, usually
involve the manipulation of physical objects.
Biodata Instruments

Biodata background information and personal characteristics that can be used in employee selection. Biodata
refers to background information and personal characteristics that can be used in a systematic fashion to
select employees (Schmitt & Golubovich, 2013). Developing biodata instruments typically involves taking
information that would appear on application forms and other items about background, personal interests,
and behavior and using that information to develop a form of forced-choice employment test. Along with
items designed to measure basic biographical information, such as education and work history, the biodata
instrument might also involve questions of a more personal nature, probing the applicant’s attitudes, values,
likes, and dislikes (Breaugh, 2009; Stokes, Mumford, & Owens, 1994). Biodata instruments are unlike the
other test instruments because there are no standardized biodata instruments. Instead, biodata instruments
take a great deal of research to develop and validate. Because biodata instruments are typically designed to
screen applicants for one specific job, they are most likely to be used only for higher-level positions.
Research indicates that biodata instruments can be effective screening and placement tools (Dean, 2004;
Mount, Witt, & Barrick, 2000; Ployhart, Schneider, & Schmitt, 2006).

Cognitive Ability Test

Tests of cognitive ability range from tests of general intellectual ability to tests of specific cognitive skills.
Group-administered, pencil-and-paper tests of general intelligence have been used in employee screening for
some time. Two such widely used older instruments are the Otis Self-Administering Test of Mental Ability
(Otis, 1929) and the Wonderlic Personnel Test (now called the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test; Wonderlic,
1983). Both are fairly short and assess basic verbal and numerical abilities. Designed to measure the ability to
learn simple jobs, to follow instructions, and to solve work-related problems and difficulties, these tests
are used to screen applicants for positions as office clerks, assembly workers, machine operators, and
certain frontline supervisors.

Mechanical Ability Test

Standardized tests have also been developed to measure abilities in identifying, recognizing, and applying
mechanical principles. These tests are particularly effective in screening applicants for positions that require
operating or repairing machinery, for construction jobs, and for certain engineering positions. The Bennett
Mechanical Comprehension Test, or BMCT (Bennett, 1980), is one such commonly used instrument. The
BMCT consists of 68 items, each of which requires the application of a physical law or a mechanical
operation.

Motor and Sensory Ability Tests

A number of tests measure specific motor skills or sensory abilities. Tests such as the Crawford Small Parts
Dexterity Test (Crawford, 1981) and the Purdue Pegboard (Tiffin, 1968) are timed performance instruments
(speed tests) that require the manipulation of small parts to measure the fine motor dexterity in hands and
fingers required in jobs such as assembling computer components and soldering electrical equipment. For
example, the Crawford test uses boards with small holes into which tiny pins must be placed using a pair of
 tweezers. The second part of the test requires screwing small screws into threaded holes with a screwdriver.
Sensory ability tests include tests of hearing, visual acuity, and perceptual discrimination. The most common
test of visual acuity is the Snellen Eye Chart, which consists of rows of letters that become
increasingly smaller. Various electronic instruments are used to measure hearing acuity. In employment
settings, they are used in basic screening for positions such as inspectors or bus drivers who require fine
audio or visual discrimination.

Job Skills and Knowledge Tests

Various standardized tests also assess specific job skills or domains of job knowledge. Examples of job skill
tests for clerical workers would be a standardized typing test or tests of other specific clerical skills such as
proofreading, alphabetical filing, or correction of spelling or grammatical errors, as well as the use of
software. For example, the Judd Tests (Simmons, 1993) are a series of tests designed to assess competency in
several areas of computer competence, including word processing, spreadsheet programs, and database
management.
A special sort of job skill test involves the use of work sample tests, which measure applicants’ abilities to
perform brief examples of some of the critical tasks that the job requires (Thornton & Kedharnath, 2013).
The sample tasks are constructed as tests, administered under standard testing conditions, and scored on some
predetermined scale. Their obvious advantage is that they are clearly job related. In fact, work sample tests
can serve as a realistic job preview, allowing applicants to determine their own suitability (and capabilities)
for performing a job (Callinan & Robertson, 2000). A drawback is that work samples are usually rather
expensive to develop and take a great deal of time to administer. Research suggests that work sample tests
can be a very good predictor of job performance (Roth et al., 2005; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Job knowledge
tests are instruments that assess specific types of knowledge required to perform certain jobs. For example, a
job knowledge test for nurses or paramedics might contain questions asking about appropriate emergency
medical procedures. A job knowledge test for a financial examiner might include questions about regulations
governing financial transactions and securities regulations. Research has demonstrated good predictive
validity for job knowledge tests (Ones & Viswesvaran, 2007).

Personality Tests

Personality tests are designed to measure certain psychological characteristics of workers. A wide variety of
these tests are used in employee screening and selection in an attempt to match the personality
characteristics of job applicants with those of workers who have performed the job successfully in the past.
During the 1960s and 1970s, there was some controversy over the use of such tests because of evidence that
the connection between general personality dimensions and the performance of specific work tasks was not
very strong or direct (Ghiselli, 1973; Guion & Got-tier, 1965). However, in the 1990s meta-analytic reviews
of research suggested that certain work-related personality characteristics can be quite good predictors of job
performance, particularly when the personality dimensions assessed are derived from a thorough analysis
of the requirements for the job (Robertson & Kinder, 1993; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). General
personality inventories, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, or MMPI (Hathaway &
McKinley, 1970), are also used to screen out applicants who possess some psychopathology that might
hinder the performance of sensitive jobs, such as police officer, airline pilot, or nuclear power plant operator.
Research examining the use of personality tests in employee screening has found that certain personality
characteristics, such as “conscientiousness” and “dependability,” are good predictors of both job performance
and work attendance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1994), but may not be predictive
of managerial success (Robertson, Baron, Gibbons, MacIver, & Nyfield, 2000). The personality traits of
“dominance” and “extraversion” are good predictors of success as a manager and of career success (Barrick
& Mount, 1993; Megargee & Carbonell, 1988; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001).

A relatively new construct that has begun to capture the attention of I/O psychologists interested in the
selection of employees is that of emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence involves knowledge,
understanding, and regulation of emotions; ability to communicate emotionally; and using emotions to
facilitate thinking (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). As such, emotional intelligence is
partly personality, partly an ability, and partly a form of intelligence, so it does not fit neatly into any
 of our categories of tests.

Honesty and Integrity Tests

Polygraphs, or lie detectors—instruments designed to measure physiological reactions presumably associated

with lying such as respiration, blood pressure, or perspiration—were used in employee selection. Most often
polygraphs were used to screen out “dishonest” applicants for positions in which they would have to handle
cash or expensive merchandise, although they had also been used by a wide number of organizations to
screen and select employees for almost any position. Since the establishment of restrictions on the use of
polygraphs, many employers have turned to using paper-and-pencil measures of honesty, referred to as
integrity tests. Typically, these tests ask about past honest/dishonest behavior or about attitudes condoning
dishonest behavior.

Meta-analyses of validity studies of integrity tests indicate that they are somewhat valid predictors of
employee dishonesty and “counterproductive behaviors,” such as chronic tardiness, taking extended work
breaks, and “goldbricking” (ignoring or passing off assigned work tasks), but are less related to employee
productivity (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998b; Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, & Odle-Dusseau, 2012). It has
also been suggested that integrity tests might predict productive employee behaviors because integrity
overlaps with work-related personality constructs such as conscientiousness and emotional stability (Sackett
& Wanek, 1996). Wanek (1999) suggested that integrity tests should never be the sole basis for a hiring
decision and that they are best used in combination with other valid predictors.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EMPLOYEE SCREENING TESTS

The effectiveness of using standardized tests for screening potential employees remains a controversial issue.
Critics of testing cite the low validity coefficients of certain employment tests. However, supporters believe
that a comparison of all screening methods—tests, biographical information, and hiring interviews—across the
full spectrum of jobs reveals that employment tests are the best predictors of job performance (Hunter &
Hunter, 1984). Obviously, the ability of a test to predict performance in a specific job depends on how well it
can capture and measure the particular skills, knowledge, or abilities required.

The most effective use of screening tests occurs when a number of instruments are used in combination
to predict effective job performance. Because most jobs are complex, involving a wide range of tasks, it
is unlikely that successful performance is due to just one particular type of knowledge or skill. Therefore,
any single test will only be able to predict one aspect of a total job. Employment screening tests are
usually grouped together into a test battery (Test Battery a combination of employment tests used to
increase the ability to predict future job performance).

Standardized tests can be reliable and valid screening devices for many jobs. However, wo important issues
regarding this use of tests must be considered: validity generalization and test utility.
(a) Validity generalization of a screening test refers to its validity in predicting performance in a job or
setting different from the one in which the test was validated. The more similar the jobs and organizations
involved in the validity studies are to the jobs and organizations that subsequently use the screening tests,
the more likely it is that validity will generalize from one situation to another.
(b) Test utility is the value of a screening test in helping to affect important organizational outcomes. In
other words, test utility determines the success of a test in terms of dollars gained by the company through
the increased performance and productivity of workers selected based on test scores

Another important issue in testing is the importance of ethics in the administration and use of employment
testing, including the protection of the privacy of persons being tested (Leong, Park, & Leach, 2013). I/O
psychologists are very concerned about ethical issues in testing. A final issue concerning testing is the issue of
faking. Faking is trying to “beat” the test by distorting responses to the test in an effort to present oneself in a
positive, socially desirable way. Faking is a particular concern for personality and integrity tests (O’Neill et al.,
2013; Ryan & Sackett, 1987). Laypersons tend to believe that employment tests are easily faked, but this is not
the case. First, some tests have subscales designed to determine if a test-taker is trying to fake the test. Second,
it is often difficult for the test-taker to determine exactly which responses are the correct (desired) responses.
Finally, there is evidence that personality and integrity tests are quite robust, still validly measuring their
intended constructs even when test-takers are trying to fake (Furnham, 1997; Hough, 1998; Ones &
Viswesvaran, 1998c).

ASSESSMENT CENTERS
One of the most detailed forms of employment screening and selection takes place in an assessment center,
which offers a detailed, structured evaluation of applicants on a wide range of job-related knowledge, skills,
and abilities. Specific managerial skills and characteristics an assessment center attempts to measure include
oral and written communication skills; behavioral flexibility; creativity; tolerance of uncertainty; and skills in
organization, planning, and decision making. Because a variety of instruments are used to assess participants,
the assessment center often makes use of large test batteries.

In assessment centers, applicants are evaluated on a number of job-related variables using a variety of
techniques, such as personality and ability tests that are considered to be valid predictors of
managerial success. Applicants also take part in a number of situational exercises, which are attempts to
approximate certain aspects of the managerial job. These exercises are related to work samples, except that
they are approximations rather than actual examples of work tasks (see Howard, 1997; Streufert, Pogash, &
Piasecki, 1988).

One popular (or “inbox”) test (Fredericksen, 1962), which requires the applicant to deal with a stack of
memos, letters, and other materials that have supposedly collected in the “in-basket” of a manager. The
applicant is given some background information about the job and then must actually take care of the work
in the in-basket by answering correspondence, preparing agendas for meetings, making decisions, and the
like. A group of observers considers how each applicant deals with the various tasks and assigns a
performance score.
Another situational exercise is the leaderless group discussion (Bass, 1954). Here, applicants are put
together in a small group to discuss some work-related topic. The goal is to see how each applicant handles
the situation and who emerges as a discussion leader. Other assessment center exercises might require the
assessee to make a presentation, role-play an encounter with a supervisee, or engage in a team exercise with
other assessees (Bobrow & Leonards, 1997).

The result of testing at the assessment center is a detailed profile of each applicant, as well as some index of
how a particular applicant rated in comparison to others. Although research has indicated that assessment
centers are relatively good predictors of managerial success (Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, & Bent-son,
1987; Hermelin, Lievens, & Robertson, 2007; Hoffman, Kennedy, LoPilato, Monahan, & Lance, 2015), the
reasons why assessment centers work are less clear (Kleinmann, 1993; Klimoski & Brickner, 1987; Kuncel
& Sackett, 2014).

HIRING INTERVIEWS

If not conducted properly, the hiring interview can be a poor predictor of future job performance (Arvey &
Campion, 1982; Harris, 1989; Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994). I/O psychologists have contributed greatly to our
understanding of the effectiveness of interviews as a hiring tool. Care must be taken to ensure the reliability
and validity of judgments of applicants made in hiring interviews. Part of the problem with the validity of
interviews is that many interviews are conducted haphazardly, with little structure to them (Wright,
Lichtenfels, & Pursell, 1989). The hiring interview is actually a measurement tool, and employment
decisions derived from interviews should be held to the same standards of reliability, validity, and
predictability as tests (Dipboye, 1989).
A number of variations on the traditional interview format have been developed to try to improve the
effectiveness of interviews as a selection tool. One variation is the situational interview, which asks
interviewees how they would deal with specific job-related, hypothetical situations (Dipboye, Wooten, &
Halverson, 2004; Motowidlo, Dunnette, & Carter, 1990). Another variation has been referred to as the
behavior description interview (Janz, 1982) or structured behavioral interview, which asks interviewees to
draw on past job incidents and behaviors to deal with hypothetical future work situations (Motowidlo et al.,
1992). A meta- analysis suggests that asking about past behaviors is better than asking about hypothetical
situations (Taylor & Small, 2002), although the additional structure and focusing provided by these variations
to traditional interviews are effective in improving the success of hiring interviews as selection devices
(Maurer & Faye, 1988; Moscoso, 2000; Weekley & Gier, 1987).
When used correctly as part of an employee screening and selection program, the hiring interview should
have three major objectives. First, the interview should be used to help fill in gaps in the information obtained
from the applicant’s resume and application form and from employment tests and to measure the kinds of
factors that are only available in a face-to-face encounter, such as poise and oral communication skills
(Huffcutt, Conway, Roth, & Stone, 2001). Second, the hiring interview should provide applicants with
realistic job previews, which help them decide whether they really want the job and offer an initial orientation
to the organization (Rynes, 1989). Finally, because the hiring interview is one way that an organization
interacts directly with a portion of the general public, it can serve an important public relations function
for the company (Cascio, 1987, 2003).