2008 IPMAAC Conference: Presentations

With memories of last week's IPMAAC conference fresh in my head (and what a great conference it was!), I thought I would mention that presentation slides have already started to appear at the website.

Here's a sample of what's already up:

Police recruiting and retention: "It's Showtime"

Implementing an assessment program for executive candidates

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Expect many more to pop up in the next few weeks.

Interested in becoming a member? Go here.

In search of highly skilled workers

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has a new study out called In Search of Highly Skilled Workers. Like all MSPB studies, it's focused on the federal government. But it has a lot of good info regardless of what sector you're in.

For example:

- MSPB recommended that departments should not rely exclusively on USAJOBS since this was not the primary way people found out about jobs--word of mouth was, through friends/relatives or their supervisor/co-workers

- More and more hires are being made from the veterans program, and this results in the most white males compared to other mechanisms; this has resulted in upper level hires trending toward white males. Interestingly, the most diverse hires were made through "direct hire", which does not require rating & ranking candidates.

- Use of the competitive exam process (e.g., need to rate & rank) is less and less frequent.

- Job security was by far the top reason new hires applied for federal jobs; other highly ranked factors included mission of organization, opportunity to serve the public/do good, benefits, and opportunity to use talents/have a better job.

- OPM's television campaign is seeing some success, with increased traffic.

- Candidates are pretty lazy and/or strapped for time. About 1/3 of hires did not apply for other jobs because they would have had to re-write their narrative description of their KSAs while about 1/4 did not because they would have to have rewritten their resume (!).

- More than ½ of upper-level hires were not aware of their application status until they called for an interview/job offer (sadly, probably not that rare).

- Many new hires indicated they would have accepted their job even with a reduction in pay because of workplace flexibilities and benefits.

- Coordination of hiring managers and HR was key: 98% of managers involved with the development of assessment tools said they got the talent they needed; only 82% of managers not involved felt that way.

- Upper level hires were willing to wait about 2 months between job application and job offer--most felt anything after that was unreasonable.

- Things the feds don't do well? According to new hires, they don't deal effectively with poor performers, their leave benefits could be better, and (not surprisingly) they weren't thrilled with the pay.

- Something else federal departments can improve on: providing clear minimum qualifications that truly are the "lowest bar", and verifying that applicants have them.

Good lessons here for employers everywhere.

Mini book review: Groundswell

Did you know that by reading this blog post you've been put into a category? Yep, at the very least you're a "spectator." In fact, you might be a "joiner", a "collector", a "critic" or even (as I am) a "creator." Where am I getting these labels? They all come from Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff's new book, Groundswell: Winning in a world transformed by social technologies.

This is by no means a new subject. There have been quite a few books in recent years that cover social technologies and how they can be used productively. But these books have tended to have either a more narrow focus (e.g., by focusing on particular technologies or organizational functions such as marketing) or an extremely broad focus. In Groundswell, Li and Bernoff, both VPs and analysts at Forrester Research, describe the current slate of social technologies and provide organizations with a road map of how they should (or shouldn't) be used.

Those of you familiar with Charlene's blog will recognize much of the content of the book--in fact to be honest there aren't a lot of new concepts in the book, which is a potential drawback. The book is, to a large extent, a collection of the various concepts that the authors have already published. But there's no denying that having it all in one place is mighty handy, and the in-depth case studies serve to flush out the details. And those of you that aren't avid readers of the blog will find much in here to digest.

So what is "the groundswell"? According to the authors it's "A social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions like corporations."

These technologies include all the usual suspects, including blogs, wikis, social networks, forums, review sites, tags, RSS, widgets--you get the point. They also touch on newer technologies such as Twitter (which isn't so new anymore).

The biggest strength of the book lies in its description of two concepts:

- the social technographic ladder, a graphical description of various categories of technology participation. These are the categories I mentioned at the beginning of this post and it's how the authors suggest organizations stratify their customers to figure out what social technology will work best.

- POST, the authors' recommendation for how to plan to engage the groundswell. This deliberate, logical approach to using social technologies is the biggest takeaway from the book. It recognizes that not all technologies are appropriate for all organizations and provides users with a rational way of planning the strategic implementation of them.

On balance, the book is an easy read and provides a great mix of big picture considerations with real-world examples. Unless you're completely new to the subject it's not likely to rock your world, but if you're interested in using social technologies but aren't sure how, this is not a bad book to have.

What would improve the book? More specifics--details--on how exactly to use the technologies. Best practices for setting up a Facebook page, for example. The different blogging platforms and their pros and cons. It's not enough to understand the concept of the technology--you need to understand the technology itself.

So what does all this have to do with recruitment and assessment? Quite a bit actually, but mostly with the former (after all, check out where people spend their time). Tapping into social technologies is a great way to spread and monitor your employment brand--i..e, why should people want to work for you? It's also a great way to identify potential candidates and spread the word about opportunities. In terms of testing, we're not there yet (and won't be until we have a secure database of individual test scores). But maybe that's okay--after all you want a job-person match, not a person-test score match.

So why did I call this a mini-review? Because I haven't read the whole book (yet). I've read most of the beginning and latter chapters, but haven't made my way through the middle, which is comprised mostly of case studies. I don't claim to have read it cover-to-cover, so take this review with that in mind.

Grading topgrading

A recent issue of Workforce Magazine highlighted the lifelong work of Brad Smart, who vigorously endorses a method of assessment he calls "Topgrading."

What is topgrading? According to the article (and the website), it's a hiring method that places emphasis on rigorous, structured behavioral interviews using pre-established rating scales in conjunction with in-depth reference checking. The goal is to go beyond normal behavioral interviews, which are susceptible to faking, and ask about each and every full time job.

Coined by Brad Smart, topgrading has been getting more press lately, and Smart claims a history of success with the method, which isn't surprising given that we know that structured interviews are one of the most predictive forms of assessment. The method has many fans, including Jack Welch.

The technique does have its critics. For example, the article quotes a representative from DDI (a competitor) as saying DDI's method is more job-related and "objectively valid." DDI's approach is to use a larger variety of assessments to get a fuller picture of the candidate.


So here's the thing. When we're looking at a hiring process we have a whole menu of choices. We know certain types of tests tend to work well across the board (e.g., cognitive ability, work sample tests) while others typically don't (e.g., interest inventories).

We also know that tailoring the assessment method to fit the requirements of the job is critically important--and a fundamental building block of quality assessment. For example, matching personality requirements with the proper personality inventory makes a huge difference.

So is topgrading the right way to go? You can guess my answer: it depends. For the types of jobs it seems to be used for frequently, C-level positions, it probably does a pretty good job of predicting performance and those candidates may be more willing to sit through a very long interview. For other positions, a wider range of assessment options is probably the better way to go. It all comes back to the results of your job analysis and your candidate pool.

Like most things in life, there is no single one right way, no one answer. And we can't forget that job performance is about much more than just raw talent and focusing strictly on talent can be hazardous for your organization. But ya gotta give a lot of credit to the Smarts for evangelizing high-quality structured interviews.

The diversity-validity dilemma (+ free articles!!)

The latest issue of Personnel Psychology has some great articles in it and right now they're free! So before you do anything else, get while the gettin's good, because normally each article will run ya $30.

So what's in there? The main attraction is a great series of articles on the "diversity-validity" dilemma, which Pyburn, Ployhart, and Kravitz in their article on the legal context, define as:

"The ability of organizations to simultaneously identify high-quality candidates and establish a diverse work force can be hindered by the fact that many of the more predictive selection procedures negatively influence the pass rates of racioethnic minority group members (non-Whites) and women."

This article is a great short read that goes over the major legal points, including adverse impact and the major court cases.

The next article, by Ployhart and Holtz, is a print-and-save type article (yes it's that good) that summarizes the various strategies employers can use to help resolve the dilemma. The article includes a couple of great tables, including one that summarizes most selection mechanisms with their corresponding criterion-related validity and d-values (pp. 155-156) and another that summarizes the various resolutions to the dilemma (pp. 158-163).

Bottom line from that article? I'll let the authors say it:

"Among the most effective strategies, the only strategy that does not also reduce validity is assessing the full range of KSAOs." (bold added)

Hallelujah. Yes, certain assessment methods tend to work better than others (e.g., structured interviews, job knowledge tests) but the best approach is plain old fashioned good practice: Start with job analysis and use the testing methods that best target the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) that rise to the top. It really is pretty simple.

The third article in the series is another fabulous one, this time targeting the role that affirmative action (AA) plays in the dilemma.

In it, Kravitz provides a great overview of the basis of AA, attitudes about AA, and provides some answers to some controversial issues, including:

- Does discrimination still occur? (Answer: you bet)
- What is the economic impact of AA on target groups? (A: it's complicated)
- What is the economic impact of AA on organizations? (A: apparently very little)
- Does AA lead to stigmatization of target group members by others? (A: it can)
- Does AA lead to self-stigmatization of target group members? (A: hard to say)

The article then wraps up with some great practical recommendations, the two most important of which are strong, visible, ongoing support of management and the development of an appropriate culture.

Last but not least, don't miss the other great content in this issue, including Mount et al.'s article, Incremental validity of perceptual speed and accuracy over general mental ability and Taylor et al.'s article The transportability of job information across countries.

Now get out there and get some free content!

The Acting Quotient

Think about your favorite actor or actress. Think about their performances and the different characters they've played.

Now think about what you know about that person given their performances:

- How quickly would they learn?
- How good of a team player would they make?
- What are their customer service skills like?
- Would they show up to work punctually?

Do you have any idea what the answers to these questions are? Probably not. That's because they're good at what they do--modifying their behavior to fit different roles.

Why do I bring this up? Because lately I've been thinking about how much stock people place in the most common screening mechanisms--applications, resumes, and interviews. These selection mechanisms all allow enormous opportunities for candidates to alter their behavior to fit what they think you want to hear, or to downright fib. Another up-and-coming selection method, on-line training and experience (T&E) measures, offer similar opportunities.

This is one reason why testing doesn't perfectly predict performance--because what you see isn't always close to what you get. What's worse, we tend to think we can spot the fibbers--which just plain isn't true. We're not nearly as good at most things as we think we are.

A person's real performance can be seen as true score or typical performance, and researchers have looked into the extent to which people self-inflate. The academic term for this is impression management. But for our purposes let's just think about an individual's ability to pull the wool over the employer's eyes--their Acting Quotient (AQ).

What causes someone's AQ to be higher?

- The person is a good actor or actress. It's just a natural skill. They know what their strengths are, and the play to them. They're good at reading you, and they modify their behavior to fit the subtle cues you're giving them. In fact people can vary their acting method depending on what kind of question you ask!

- They're very motivated to get your job. This could be good (my skills match your needs), this could be bad (I'm about to get fired).

- They understand what you're looking for. Again, this could be good (they did their homework) or less impressive (they know someone who works for you already).

Okay, now the important part. What can we do to mitigate the impact of someone's AQ?

- Ask difficult technical questions whenever possible. Not all jobs lend themselves to this, but whenever you can ask questions that require job knowledge and aren't easily predictable.

- Conduct extensive reference checks. Rely heavily on off-list checks. Talk to co-workers and customers, not just supervisors.

- Triangulate and be patient. Make application/resume review and interviews a small portion of your selection process. Make no decisions until all the information is in.

- Have a bias for work sample/performance tests. Make someone show you they can do things--not just tell you they can.

Now on the bright side, many if not most people (including myself) aren't very good at acting. Sure, I can put a positive spin on my accomplishments, but I'm not very good at making things up out of whole cloth. Which is good, because it means when I interview, like most people, what you see is generally what you get. But that doesn't mean there aren't Academy Award nominees out there, and it doesn't mean we can't do better at hiring the right person.

New MSPB study has gems

A new study out by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), "Attracting the next generation: A look at federal entry-level new hires," while focused on the federal government, has good information for all of us. The study of recent federal hires uses data from over 1,000 survey participants as well as personnel records. Some of the insights include:

- Both those under 30 and those 30+ were most likely to find out about the job through a friend or relative. On the other hand, those 30+ were more likely to use USAJOBs and agency web sites, whereas those under 30 (not surprisingly) were more likely to discover jobs through school job fairs or placement offices. In addition, those under 30 were more likely to use "non-government job sites."

- The most common forms of assessment used were (mostly unstructured) interviews and reviews of transcripts. Narrative statements, written exams, and job simulations were (unfortunately) used much less often--despite evidence of their superior ability to predict job performance.

- Agencies also relied heavily on the "point method" for reviewing training and experience--i.e., the more training/experience you have, the higher your score. This despite evidence that the correlation between experience and performance is complex and peaks fairly quickly, while education does not generally predict performance very well. Not to mention that they make little sense when hiring for entry-level jobs.

- There were very few differences between age groups when it came to what applicants wanted in a job. For both the under 30 and 30+ groups, salary and benefits came out tops. The only significant differences came when looking at pensions (more popular among those 30+) and health insurance and tuition reimbursement (more popular among those under 30). Job security was also mentioned by both groups as a big draw to the federal government.

- Those under 30 were much less likely to predict staying with the feds for their entire career (although still an impressive 45%), and more likely to predict eventually moving to the private sector.

- "Length of the process" was by far the biggest obstacle faced by applicants in their pursuit of a federal job.


MSPB recommends federal agencies make several improvements to their recruiting and assessment efforts, including:

- Use more predictive assessment tools instead of relying on training and experience measures.

- Use a balanced set of recruitment practices to reach all the various segments of the job market. MSPB points out that conducting a proper job analysis and identifying true minimum qualifications can help cut down the number of unqualified applicants.

- Market what is important to applicants. For federal agencies this means job security, benefits, and the ability to make a difference.

- Evaluate the hiring process and remove any obstacles that are unnecessarily lengthening the process.

- Avoid stereotyping based on generational assumptions, since the data indicate substantial similarities between age groups in what they want out of a job.

Again, good information for all of us. There's a lot more information in the report.

2008 PTC-NC Conference

The Personnel Testing Council of Northern California (PTC-NC) is hosting its annual conference on March 20-21 in Concord.

They've lined up quite an agenda with some great presentations. Here's a sample:

- Disparate Impact and Employment Testing by Michael Harris

- Situational Judgment Testing by Jim Outtz

- Personality Assessments by Bob Hogan

Oh yeah, and I'll be doing a session on demographic application patterns and adverse impact of an on-line T&E system.

For more information contact Jerimiah Honer at jhoner@spb.ca.gov

Et tu, HR?

It's easy to give out advice. HR does it all the time.

But how well does HR practice what it preaches?

In the most recent issue of the U.S. Merit System Protection Board's (MSPB) newsletter, Issues of Merit, in an article titled "Taking our own advice", the author describes attempts by MSPB to ensure they are walking the walk when it comes to hiring procedures.

So what did they find?

1) Their job announcements weren't all that attractive. They contained jargon and too much information. Perhaps more importantly, they didn't "sell" the job.

Solutions: Job description was refined and rewritten so qualifications were easier to understand, got rid of excess information, and made easier to read. In addition, they added a job preview component that helps applicants decide if the job is a good fit.

2) They were using questionnaires as an initial screen that had low validity.

Solution: Questionnaires were replaced with an accomplishment record, which they hope (and research suggests) will better predict who will succeed in the job.

3) They were using the "rule of three" for external hires which limited their ability to consider a broad candidate group.

Solution: "Rule of three" replaced with category rating, which allows them to consider more candidates.

4) Recruitment methods weren't as broad as they could be.

Solution: MSPB worked with OPM to feature their jobs prominently through USAJOBS, the federal government's online job posting site. In addition they made greater efforts to actively seek out qualified candidates whose resumes were in USAJOBS. Finally, they used professional organizations to help advertise their opportunities.

An honest review of recruitment and assessment procedures in any organization will undoubtedly result in areas for improvement. Kudos to MSPB for following their own advice.

Tips for hiring more individuals with disabilities

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued a report titled Improving the participation rate of people with targeted disabilities in the federal workforce.

Long title aside, the report offers all employers some concrete suggestions for increasing the hiring rate of individuals with disabilities, a chronically underemployed segment of the population. These recommendations include some that you probably have already thought of (establish a task force, train your managers, recruit broadly) but also include some you may not have:

- Ensure hired individuals can perform the essential functions of the position (so you don't set people up for failure)

- Use a panel interview to minimize bias of a single individual (which we know is a best practice for interviews generally)

- Use clear language and avoid jargon on job announcements (something we should be doing anyway)

- Encourage people with disabilities to self-identify and ensure confidentiality (your numbers may be artificially low)

There's a lot of good information and resources in the report that go beyond the federal workforce. Definitely worth checking out.

Rigorous assessment pays off

It's great when the mainstream press gets assessment right. It doesn't happen a lot, so I want to make sure to point out a good example.

Ellen Simon (AP) devoted a recent article to employers that, even in a tight labor market, put job applicants through the paces.

Some of my favorite bits from the article:

- Employers that recognize their employees are an integral part of their brand. If your employees are unhappy, not trained, or otherwise a bad fit, customers (and potential applicants) notice.

- This quote from Rackspace Managed Hosting CEO Lanham Napier: "We'd rather miss a good one than hire a bad one." Without getting into Type I versus Type II errors, let me just say that Mr. Napier demonstrates the wisdom of someone who's seen what a bad hire can (or can't) do. (Check out their refreshingly simple career portal)

- The fact that Rackspace interviews last ALL DAY. Yep, all day. In this age of "I only have 30 minutes for the interview", that's darn refreshing.

- The wonderful use of realistic job preview videos by Lindblad Expeditions that show employees cleaning toilets and washing dishes. Says Kris Thompson, VP of HR, "If they get on board and say, 'This is not what I expected,' then shame on us." Check out how their online preview video combines push with pull.

I don't agree with everything in the article--I'm not a big fan of the idea of secretly judging people on their waiting room behavior--but all in all some great examples here to recognize.

(by the way, the HBR article Simon cites, called "Fool vs. Jerk: Whom Would you Hire?" is here.

Links a go-go: Halloween Edition

Good reading for this October 31, 2007--enough to frighten us into paying renewed attention to our recruiting and assessment:

Testing without analysis...now that's scary!

It's scary, all the things that get in the way of job performance

What's that sound? Oh, just ATS reports running.

Be afraid...very afraid...of drop-down menus!

Hope your career portal isn't frighteningly bad

The number of job boards is truly monstrous

October '07 ACN

The October 2007 issue of the Assessment Council News is out with two great articles:

First, Dr. Mike Aamodt tackles the issue of validity co-efficients with Beauty May Be in the Eye of the Beholder, but is the Same True of a Validity Coefficient? (begins page 2)

In the article, Dr. Aamodt gathers data from experts in the assessment community on questions such as:

- Is there a minimum value for a validity coefficient that would generally be accepted by testing experts? If so, what is it?

(includes a great table summarizing where certain validity coefficient values have been referenced)

- What is the lowest uncorrected validity coefficient that you believe would indicate that an inference from a test has acceptable criterion validity?

- If a validity coefficient is statistically significant, is that enough to imply job relatedness?

The second article is by Natasha Riley and covers a topic near and dear to our hearts--Unproctored Internet Testing--The Technological Edge: Panacea or Pandora's Box? (page 11)

If the title seems a little odd and/or familiar, it's because it's a combination of various presentation titles from the 2007 IPMAAC conference where unproctored Internet testing was a hot topic. In the article, Natasha covers some pros and cons of this type of testing and describes how Riverside County in California is having some success with it.

Remember, internet-based testing does not have to be about selecting out. It can be about giving candidates tools they can use to determine whether they would be a good fit. Cheating is removed as an obstacle when we eliminate the motivation. Consider giving the applicant the "exam" and have them determine whether they want to move forward given their results and how they compare to successful job incumbents.

Anyway, kudos to IPMAAC for another illuminating issue of ACN. Keep 'em comin', and folks watch out for the call for proposals for the 2008 IPMAAC conference! (to be announced shortly)

Links a go-go for October 1, 2007

Good reading for October 1, 2007

The new affirmative action (about schools, but lessons for employers)

2007 ILG National Conference Highlights

Don't automatically dismiss people that been fired

Court rules EEOC may proceed with discrimination case against L.A. Weight Loss

Visa and using credit scores in the hiring process

Hiring supervisors and leaders (the #1 problem of most organizations, IMHO)

Deloitte demonstrates just how creative recruiting can be

How many names does it take to get to a hire?

Who does The Gap think it is? Monster?

A hiatus and government blogging

I'll be taking a brief hiatus from blogging as I move from the Pacific Northwest to California. There's plenty more blogging to come, it just may be a few weeks as I get settled in.

In the meantime, for those of you interested in learning more about blogs--how to make them and how to use them--you should check out an IBM study that came out recently titled The Blogging Revolution: Government in the Age of Web 2.0 by David Wyld. It's chock full of info, and not just for those of you in the public sector. Topics include:

- How do I blog?

- Touring the blogosphere

- Blogging policy

If this is a topic that interests you, don't forget to check out Scoble & Israel's Naked Conversations: How Blogs are Changing the Way Businesses Talk with Customers.

Oh, and if you look at the bottom of my homepage you might just see a link to an article that a certain someone (okay, me) wrote recently about how to use blogs for recruitment, assessment, and retention.

Thanks for reading & I'll be back soon!

The Corporate Leavers Survey

This just in from the Level Playing Field Institute: a new study, sponsored by Korn/Ferry, that finds that corporate unfairness, in the form of "every-day inappropriate behaviors such as stereotyping, public humiliation and promoting based upon personal characteristics" costs U.S. employers $64 billion annually.

This sum, based on survey responses from 1,700 professionals and managers, is an estimate of "the cost of losing and replacing professionals and managers who leave their employers solely due to workplace unfairness. By adding in those for whom unfairness was a major contributor to their decision to leave, the figure is substantially greater."

Examples of the type of behavior they're talking about:

- the Arab telecommunications professional who, upon returning from visiting family in Iraq, is asked by a manager if he participated in any terrorism

- the African-American lawyer who is mistaken THREE TIMES for a different black lawyer by a partner at that firm

- the lesbian professional who is told that the organization offers pet insurance for rats, pigs, and snakes, but does not offer domestic partner benefits

What does this have to do with recruiting? Aside from the obvious (turnover-->need to backfill), check this out:

One of the top four behaviors most likely to prompt someone to quit: being asked to attend extra recruiting or community related events because of one's race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

Not only that, but 27% of respondents who experience unfairness at work in the last year said this experience "strongly discouraged them" from recommending their employer to other potential applicants.

What can employers do to prevent this? Aside from the tried and true methods (good and regular training for all supervisors, prompt and thorough investigations), the report offers other suggestions, which vary depending on the group (e.g., more/better benefits for gay and lesbian respondents, better managers for people of color).

Definitely some things to ponder.

Summary here

Links a go-go for 8-24-07

Good reading for August 24, 2007:

OFCCP issues final regulations implementing Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002 (job banks for postings listed here), and...

OFCCP also posts interim guidance on use of race and ethnic categories (direct link here)

Are you sure you know where your hires are coming from? (hint: beware drop-down boxes)

Jobmatchbox does the 50 top recruiting blogs

Interview questions you can ask--and those you can't (includes simplistic video!)

Tracking adverse impact

Favorite defense motions in limine for employment cases

Does harassment training lead to more lawsuits? (hat tip)

The housing market and its relationship to recruiting

New regulations on no-match letters: Ho-hum?

Stop playing games

First, Google and PricewaterhouseCoopers have prospective candidates playing with Lego blocks.

Now, another company has candidates playing Monopoly (see minute 1:50) to judge multi-tasking ability.

C'mon people. You don't need to play games. Spend just a little time putting together a good assessment. Just follow these simple steps:

1. Study the job. Figure out what the key KSAs/competencies needed day one are. And spend more than 5 minutes doing it.

2. Think about what JOB TASK you could re-create in a simulation that would measure the required competencies.

3. Spend some time putting together the exercise and how you will rate it. Spend some more time on it. Practice it. Then spend some more time preparing.

4. Give it. Rate it. Treat candidates with respect throughout the process.

5. Gather performance data once people are on the job and see if it predicts job performance.

6. Hire a professional to fix your mistakes. No, I'm kidding. If you've done the other steps right, you should be golden.

Stop playing games and stop making candidates play them. If you want to know how well an Office Manager candidate multi-tasks, put them in a scenario that matches what they would really face on the job. Phones ringing, Inbox filling up, managers at your door. Not playing with phony money.

August ACN

The August, 2007 issue of Assessment Council News is out and Dr. Mike Aamodt provides his usual great writing, this time in article titled, "A Test! A Test! My Kingdom for a Valid Test!" where he goes over what you need to look for when selecting a commercially available test...in two easy steps!

Some of my favorite quotes:

"Previously, [the] clients had their supervisors create their own tests, and we advised them that this was not a good idea." (I just like the idea of saying that to clients, aside from the fact that it's true 99% of the time)

"Creating a reliable, valid, and fair measure of a competency is difficult, time consuming, frustrating, costly, and just about any other negative adjective you can conjure up. Think of the frustration that accompanies building or remodeling a home and you will have the appropriate picture." (So it ISN'T a coincidence that I enjoy testing and home remodeling. Whew.)

"...it is essential to remember that no test is valid across all jobs and that criterion validity is established by occupation, and depending on who you talk (argue) with, perhaps by individual location." (Just don't tell this to Schmidt and Hunter.)

More info about ACN, including links to past issues, here.

And by the way...major kudos to Dr. Aamodt for offering so much of his work online. This is rare and to be commended.

OPM Has New Assessment Website

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) continues to show what a professional assessment shop should be doing with it's new personnel assessment page.

There's some great stuff here, including:

- A very detailed decision guide, including a great overview of pretty much all the major topics

- Reference documents

- Assessment resources

There's even a survey built in to gather feedback on the guide, as well as a technical support form.

Major tip 'o the hat.