Under the right conditions, pre-employment tests can vastly improve corporate productivity. This paper discusses the conditions, expected productivity gains, and issues associated with pre-employment testing. Special attention is paid to issues of bias, legal rulings, validity generalization, exaggerated expectations, test quality, misuse of tests, publishers' claims, alternative assessment techniques, and the use of honesty tests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association (1974). Standards for Education and Psychological Tests and Manuals. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
American Psychological Association (1986). Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests and Manuals. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
ArveyR.D. (1979). Unfair discrimination in the employment interview: Legal and psychological aspects. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 736–765.
4.
AsherJ.J. (1972). The biographical item: Can it be improved?Personnel Psychology25, 251–269.
5.
BeanE. (February 27, 1987). More firms use ‘attitude tests’ to keep thieves off the payroll. Wall Street Journal, 37.
6.
BrayD.W.CampbellR.J.GrantD.L. (1974). Formative years of business: A long term study of managerial lives. New York: Pergamon.
7.
BolickC. (1988). Legal and Policy Aspects of Testing, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 320–330.
8.
BrogdenH.E. (1949). When testing pays off. Personnel Psychology, 2, 171–183.
9.
BrogdenH.E. (1951). Increased efficiency of selection resulting from placement of a single predictor with several different predictors, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 173–195.
10.
CronbachL.J. (1980). Selection Theory for a Political World, Public Personnel Management, 9, 1, 37–50.
11.
CronbachL.J. (1984). Essentials of Psychological Testing, New York: Harper and Row, fourth edition.
12.
DaveyB.W. (1984). Personnel testing and the search for alternatives, Public Personnel Management Journal, 13, 4, 361–374.
13.
DeutschC.H. (1988). A mania for testing spells money, New York Times, October 16, p. 4.
14.
DunnetteM.D. (1983) Aptitudes, abilities and skills. In DunnetteM.D. (ed) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York: John E. Wiley and Sons, 473–520.
15.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1978). Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, Federal Register43, 116, 38295–38309.
16.
FlaugherR.L. (1978). The many definitions of test bias. American Psychologist, 33, 7, 671–679.
17.
FleishmanE.QuaintanceM. (1984). Taxonomies of human performance, New York: Academic Press.
18.
GhiselliE.E. (1973). The validity of aptitude tests in personnel selection, Personnel Psychology, 26, 461–477.
19.
GottfredsonL.S. (1988). Reconsidering fairness: A matter of social and ethical priorities, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 3, 295.
20.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., (1971), 401 U.S. 424.
21.
HartiganJ.A.WigdorA.K., eds. (1989), Fairness in Employment Testing: Validity Generalization, Minority Issues, and the General Aptitude Test Battery, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
22.
HunterJ.E. (1980), Validity Generalization for 12,000 Jobs: An application of synthetic validity and validity generalization to the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Employment Service, U.S. Department of Labor.
23.
HunterJ.E. (1983). The economic benefits of personnel selection using ability tests: A state of the art review including a detailed analysis of the dollar benefit of U.S. employment service placements and a critique of the low-cutoff method of test use. Washington, D.C.Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
24.
HunterJ.E.SchmidtF.L. (1982). Fitting people to jobs: The impact of personnel selection on national productivity. In FleishmanE.A.DunnetteM.D. (eds). Human Performance and Productivity: Vol. 1 Human Capability Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
HunterJ.E.SchmidtF.L. (1983). Quantifying the effects of psychological interventions on employee job performance and work force productivity. American Psychologist, 38, 473–478.
26.
JensenA.R. (1980). Bias in Mental Testing, New York: The Free Press.
27.
Joint Committee on Testing Practices, Code of Fair Testing Practices, Washington, D.C.: Author.
28.
KeyserD.J.SweetlandR.C., eds., (1985–1987). Test Critiques, Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America, Volumes I-VI.
29.
LevinH. (1989). Ability Testing for job selection: Are the economic claims justified? In B. Gifford Testing and the Allocation of Opportunity, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, in press.
30.
LinnR.L. (1982) Ability testing: Individual differences and differential prediction. In Ability Testing: Uses, Consequences, and Controversies, part II. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press335–388.
31.
LinnR.L.DunbarS.B. (1986). Validity generalization and predictive bias. In BerkR.A. (ed) Performance Assessment: Methods and Applications, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
32.
MayfieldE.C., (1964). The selection interview: A re-evaluation of published research. Personnel Psychology, 17, 239–260.
33.
McCormickE. (1979). Job analysis: Methods and Applications, New York: AMA-COM.
34.
MitchellJ.V.Jr. (ed). (1983) Tests in Print III (TIP III): An Index to Tests, Test Reviews, and the Literature on Specific Tests. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska Press.
35.
MitchellJ.V.Jr. (ed.) (1986). The Ninth Mental Measurement Yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska Press.
36.
OwensW.A. (1976). Background data. In DunnetteM.D. (ed) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally.
37.
ReillyR.R.ChaoG.T. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternate employee selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35, 1–62.
38.
ReynoldsW.B. (Nov. 10, 1986). Memorandum to the Director of the U.S. Employment Service. Cited in WigdorA.K.HartiganJ.A., eds., (1988). Interim Report: Within Group Scoring of the General Aptitude Test Battery, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
39.
SackettP.R.ScmidtN.TenopryM.L.KehoeJ.ZedeckS. (1985) Commentary on fort questions about validity generalization and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 697–798.
40.
SchmidtF.L.HunterJ.E. (1981). Employment testing: Old Theories and new research findings, American Psychologist, 36, 1128–1137.
41.
SchmidtF.L.HunterJ.E.PearlmanK. (1981) Task differences as moderators of aptitude test validity in selection: A red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 2, 166–185.
42.
SchmidtF.L.HunterJ.E.PearlmanK. (1982). Assessing the economic impact of personnel programs on work force productivity, 35, 333–347.
43.
SeymourR.T. (1988) Why Plaintiffs' Counsel Challenge Tests, and How They Can Successfully Challenge the Theory of “Validity Generalization”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 331–364.
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (1987). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures, Third edition, College Park, MD: Author.
46.
SweetlandR.C.KeyserD.J., eds., (1986). Tests: A Comprehensive Reference for Assessments in Psychology, Educaiton, and Business (2nd ed.)., Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.
47.
TaylorH.C.RussellJ.T., (1939). The relationship of validity coefficients to the practical effectiveness of tests in selection: Discussion and Tables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 656–678.
48.
WagnerR., (1949). The employment interview: A critical review. Personnel Psychology, 2, 17–46.
49.
WigdorA.K.HartiganJ.A., eds. (1988). Interim Report: Within Group Scoring of the General Aptitude Test Battery, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
50.
Wonderlic & Associates (1982), Validity of the Wonderlic Personnel Test, Author.
