ON: Use of Aptitude Tests for Hiring
Posted 06-18-2014 at 04:27 PM by Blondebaerde
(Inspired by C-D Thread: "Ridiculous" test requirements for job applicants, June 18, 2014)
Clearly, employers are "trying" to mitigate risk of a bad hire.
They appear to believe that the more (or to greater depth) aptitude / screening tests dig, the better (more positively) the results correlate with a "successful" employee. Make sense?
I am not in HR, or Industrial Psychology, so I do not have data in front of me indicating if such tests do in-fact correlate positively (high R Squared) with some sort of attribute beneficial to the company: productivity, longevity, review scores, whatever they're after. Really, that's the issue.
I do, however, know that employment of full-timers is much higher stakes these days. As another person mentioned, there are probably a lot more applicants for each mid or lower-tier (skill, salary) role. Gotta screen them out somehow.
All such tests should be online, in my opinion, at least for roles requiring basic computer proficiency. PDFs can be filled out, saved and submitted with no special software required. Web forms are not all that terribly difficult to implement, either. Third party companies handle all this for firms, as an option, for a nominal fee (called "Recruitment Process Outsourcing," or RPO). DocuSign and other companies have legally valid signing tools available, eliminating the print-fill out-sign-scan bluesky routine, too. I've signed a couple employment agreements, and a real estate deal or two, using DocuSign and similar past three years: this stuff is not rocket science, or super-new. Someone handed me a stack of papers, I'd hand them right back: that paradigm is rapidly dying out thank God. We're right in the transformative era for all that.
And yes, they'll still take 20-30 minutes to fill out. Can't see a way around that, paper or not.
Last interesting fact, in a related matter: "In the United States, the use of IQ tests as a basis of employment is banned by a United States Supreme Court decision, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., unless the employer can link the IQ test to an individual's job performance based upon a job analysis."
Also: "The Court held further that intent or discriminatory purpose is irrelevant; it is consequences that matter. Tests used for hiring and promotion must be job related and validated under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines."(1)
(1) Answers dot com, Griggs-v-duke-power-co.
Is an aptitude test a thinly-veiled IQ test?
If yes, does the "aptitude test" correlate significantly to an individual's job performance?
Clearly, employers are "trying" to mitigate risk of a bad hire.
They appear to believe that the more (or to greater depth) aptitude / screening tests dig, the better (more positively) the results correlate with a "successful" employee. Make sense?
I am not in HR, or Industrial Psychology, so I do not have data in front of me indicating if such tests do in-fact correlate positively (high R Squared) with some sort of attribute beneficial to the company: productivity, longevity, review scores, whatever they're after. Really, that's the issue.
I do, however, know that employment of full-timers is much higher stakes these days. As another person mentioned, there are probably a lot more applicants for each mid or lower-tier (skill, salary) role. Gotta screen them out somehow.
All such tests should be online, in my opinion, at least for roles requiring basic computer proficiency. PDFs can be filled out, saved and submitted with no special software required. Web forms are not all that terribly difficult to implement, either. Third party companies handle all this for firms, as an option, for a nominal fee (called "Recruitment Process Outsourcing," or RPO). DocuSign and other companies have legally valid signing tools available, eliminating the print-fill out-sign-scan bluesky routine, too. I've signed a couple employment agreements, and a real estate deal or two, using DocuSign and similar past three years: this stuff is not rocket science, or super-new. Someone handed me a stack of papers, I'd hand them right back: that paradigm is rapidly dying out thank God. We're right in the transformative era for all that.
And yes, they'll still take 20-30 minutes to fill out. Can't see a way around that, paper or not.
Last interesting fact, in a related matter: "In the United States, the use of IQ tests as a basis of employment is banned by a United States Supreme Court decision, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., unless the employer can link the IQ test to an individual's job performance based upon a job analysis."
Also: "The Court held further that intent or discriminatory purpose is irrelevant; it is consequences that matter. Tests used for hiring and promotion must be job related and validated under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines."(1)
(1) Answers dot com, Griggs-v-duke-power-co.
Is an aptitude test a thinly-veiled IQ test?
If yes, does the "aptitude test" correlate significantly to an individual's job performance?
Total Comments 1
Comments
-
This reminds me of the old saying that, " the professional is always at odds with the layman." HR people are now professionals and they work and report to management and they are trained to think of workers, not as fellow laborers nor part of the the company but rather "resources" just like capital and or machines. The working person must find a way to make an end run around these HR people when possible. Find some contact within the company and court their friendship.Posted 06-20-2014 at 12:47 PM by Fortoggie
