Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The user of the test must demonstrate that it is valid and pays the piper where there is adverse impact if they cannot. There are specific regulations that address the requirements of a validation study. My issue with test sellers is that they claim that they are 'valid' when in fact they do not present evidence to support the claim.
EEOC and their lawyers simply demands that the employer prove that the test is valid. If the employer cannot the liability can be huge.
I know this, that is why I am asking you why these companies should provide you with the validation reports? Do you work for the EEOC? Have you had a plaintiff that has filed suit and requested these validation reports from inside counsel? Or are you just speaking in generalities saying that you believe most of these companies probably wouldn't have validation reports if they were asked to provide them?
This is what you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell Plotts
I have yet to see a validation study for those off-the-shelf tests.
Why would you think you would have the right to see the validation study results?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell Plotts
The best test is one that contains work examples. For example: Weld where welding is a work requirement; Calculate the impact ratio in a termination process on workers over the age of 40 and discuss the scope of your analysis if the candidate will be responsible for assessing selection activity.
In your world the best tests are what we would call "face valid" as you described above, but that is not a requirement from the uniform guidelines.
The user of the test must demonstrate that it is valid and pays the piper where there is adverse impact if they cannot. There are specific regulations that address the requirements of a validation study. My issue with test sellers is that they claim that they are 'valid' when in fact they do not present evidence to support the claim.
EEOC and their lawyers simply demands that the employer prove that the test is valid. If the employer cannot the liability can be huge.
The best test is one that contains work examples. For example: Weld where welding is a work requirement; Calculate the impact ratio in a termination process on workers over the age of 40 and discuss the scope of your analysis if the candidate will be responsible for assessing selection activity.
No offense here but this post is about HR not test sellers. I think we've also cleared up that this HR doesn't approve of such tests and tries to get rid of them.
OP: There are good and bad everything, and people who have a bad experience are more likely to complain. Very few people want to post praise, but people are quick to ***** and point fingers. HR has never screened or interviewed candidates at any place I have worked at or applied to, although it is clear they do so at some places. The worst experience I ever had was an HR Generalist who could not make a simple decision about anything without doing "research" before giving you an answer. I believe his "research" was finding someone who knew what they were doing and asking them the question. There is bad HR out there, and that is what makes the headlines. Good HR generally goes unnoticed because everything is running smoothly.
So let me see if I understand. You'd rather they give answers off the cuff? Many answers in HR are situational. The quick answer isn't always the best answer. Contrary to what many think here, HR requires a fair amount of technical knowledge and critical thinking skills. I'd much rather my HR staff take the time to provide the right answer. To do otherwise could be costly.
No offense here but this post is about HR not test sellers. I think we've also cleared up that this HR doesn't approve of such tests and tries to get rid of them.
No we didn't clear that up. For my current job they gave me this stupid psychometric test based on selecting words or something and the HR person at my interview showed me the results all excited. I wanted to tell her she was a moron but since it was an interview I had to keep my mouth shut and smile.
Fortunately it was short so I did it. If it was one of the hour long ones they used for retail I would have walked away.
No we didn't clear that up. For my current job they gave me this stupid psychometric test based on selecting words or something and the HR person at my interview showed me the results all excited. I wanted to tell her she was a moron but since it was an interview I had to keep my mouth shut and smile.
Fortunately it was short so I did it. If it was one of the hour long ones they used for retail I would have walked away.
Was it a temp agency? What kind of employer are we talking? And was it HR who decided to administer this test or were they told to do it, that is my point. No legitimate HR professional is going to support that.
Yes it was HR, no it wasn't a temp agency, and the HR person wasn't some bimbo either she has a PHR.
Dealing with HR crap is probably the part about my job I like least. I otherwise like my current job. We have this ridiculous goals based self-assessment in place of performance review that drives me crazy twice a year as well.
Why would you expect these companies to provide you with the validation study? Are you an EEOC lawyer?
The user of the test must demonstrate that it is valid and pays the piper where there is adverse impact if they cannot. There are specific regulations that address the requirements of a validation study. My issue with test sellers is that they claim that they are 'valid' when in fact they do not present evidence to support the claim.
EEOC and their lawyers simply demands that the employer prove that the test is valid. If the employer cannot the liability can be huge.
The best test is one that contains work examples. For example: Weld where welding is a work requirement; Calculate the impact ratio in a termination process on workers over the age of 40 and discuss the scope of your analysis if the candidate will be responsible for assessing selection activity. [In case you are wondering it is the inverse of a hiring analysis.]
The user of the test must demonstrate that it is valid and pays the piper where there is adverse impact if they cannot. There are specific regulations that address the requirements of a validation study. My issue with test sellers is that they claim that they are 'valid' when in fact they do not present evidence to support the claim.
EEOC and their lawyers simply demands that the employer prove that the test is valid. If the employer cannot the liability can be huge.
The best test is one that contains work examples. For example: Weld where welding is a work requirement; Calculate the impact ratio in a termination process on workers over the age of 40 and discuss the scope of your analysis if the candidate will be responsible for assessing selection activity. [In case you are wondering it is the inverse of a hiring analysis.]
So you aren't going to answer my question, just repeat your copy and paste. Cool story bro.
A company is required to provide validation evidence to the courts in cases where an adverse impact claim is filed. They aren't required to provide it to any Joe Schmoe that wants it.
So I keep reading some pretty nasty posts about HR pretty much being Nazi's and should all be shot and then some nicer posts about HR not being your friend and is only around to fire people. Are these folks just paid by some union to troll these sites and say nasty things or does anyone actually have some legitimate gripes. Yes, I'm in HR but I still don't get it. I don't fire people or tell people to go suck on lemons. I actually get more people raises than their managers do.
HR has hundreds of jobs and not all organizations are the same so I can only speak for myself and my own experiences. But it just seems so odd to me to put down a profession that from what I can tell not too many people even really know the job at all and say ugly things.
A few things I (and my colleagues) are not:
I am not a counselors/therapists or medical doctors.
I am not a lawyer to tax advisor.
I do not make the policies or police them.
I can not tell your manager what to do.
I can not tell someone to fire you or fire you myself.
I can not give you a new job, a raise, a bonus etc.
A few things we are:
A source for information about our companies policies and why they exist. I can also explain benefits programs and help you get help if you need it.
I can explain compensation practices, how to better yourself to get the next job or how to have any conversation with your manager to help leverage what outcome you want.
I also review merits and raises and if I feel it's too low I can make a case with your business unit to re-review the increase. 98% of the time I get the employee more money and the manager gets the credit.
I can coach your manager to be a better manager
I can make recommendations about terminations and I can also make strong arguments for not firing because I may not feel the manager has done their job to coach the individual appropriately. In the end it's still not my decision even if your manager says it is.
My mother is 65 years old, has a positive work history and has worked for a few household named universities and corporations in her lifetime. She has often told me over the years how Human Resources used to intervene on an employees behalf back in the 70s and 80s to help create a positive, non hostile and healthy place to work. Clearly something has changed - lol. Perhaps way back when the job description was different for HR or perhaps HR professionals had more leeway. Not sure... but something has definitely changed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
