ASE receives many calls regarding assessment tools to evaluate employment candidates. There are many testing instruments in the market that test for job skills, intellectual acumen, and candidate-to-job personality fit.
What isn't very often asked about, is whether the test does what the assessment firm claims it does and if it’s done legally. Is the test valid? There are actually two components to that question:
1. Does the assessment provide a good indication that the person can do the job?
2. Does the assessment unintentionally screen out candidates based upon race, gender, or other protected classification?
Keep in mind, from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) standpoint, any hiring “hurdle” is considered a test. This includes drug tests as well as interview and phone screens; not just competency or personality test as we are addressing in this article.
Legally, tests instruments do not have to be validated in either respect to be sold on the market. There is no licensing requirement for tests. Over the years ASE has heard from many employers that have created their own test for one employment purpose or another. Something they can do legally, but it is also very risky. Homemade tests are often “off the top of the head” tests that someone thinks up, implements on an ad hoc basis, and uses whatever “results” are found to make an employment decision. This is where un-validated tests can result in heavy liability issues when otherwise qualified candidates are screened out based upon test results that have not been validated – either for purpose or adverse impact.
A valid and validated employment test must predict and be shown to predict performance/outcomes. It also must not result in discrimination based upon race, sex, age, or another protected characteristic. Further, tests need to be used correctly. For example, it is recommended two well-known personality type assessments should not be used for hiring, only development purposes.
To avoid both validity issues, employers should ask the assessment vendor to provide validity data. A well validated test will have technical data showing that the test/assessment predicts performance, to what degree it predicts it, and how accurate it is.
Human resource professionals and anyone that is responsible for bringing in and administering testing on job candidates as well as for promotional opportunities should ask for the test’s validity data. The test/assessment vendor should be able to provide the instrument’s technical manual speaking to this data. Beware of marketing material that washes over validity by emphasizing the test is neuroscience based, fair to everybody, and fun.
Ryne Sherman, chief science officer at Hogan Assessment recommends looking for the assessment company’s history of validity. If an assessment company cannot provide what is called criterion-related validity studies proving its history of predicting workplace performance, he recommends finding another test that does.
An effective and valid assessment can save an organization quite a bit of money by avoiding bad or poor hires. Hogan Assessments reported, in using its assessment for hiring 200 people out of 1,000 applicants the return on investment was $1,000,000.
On the other side of the validation issue, if an employer is using any type of testing instrument, is ensuring that it is in compliance with the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP). Though not a licensing or use requirement for testing, failing to ensure a test tool is validated “can and will be used against you in a court of law.”
In 2016 Michigan based Gordon Food Services was found guilty of gender discrimination because the isokinetic testing technology it used to measure the upper and lower body resistance and determine if the applicant was at risk for injury on the job was never validated.
Yes, any type of test for employment including physical tests can be challenged both as to its purpose – whether it prevents the employment of a person that cannot physically do the job. As well as for adverse impact discrimination reasons – whether the test inordinately screens out a protected characteristic, in this case gender as was found in the Gordon Foods case. The testing could have also been challenged under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Gordan Foods physical assessment test resulted statistically in only six females being hired versus 300 males. This test result cost Gordan Foods $1.85 million in back wages to 926 women it was found to have discriminated against. They also had to stop using its test.
Employment tests can be an invaluable tool to improve hiring and promotional selection. Many test instruments are highly effective. Employers choosing to use tests should take a close look at whether the test is proven to do what it claims and does not discriminate.
Additional ASE Resources
Assessments – ASE is a resource for employment tests. If your organization is considering testing candidates for employment or promotion, ASE provides testing tools, information, and consultation on the proper use of employment tests. For more information, please contact Michael Burns.
Sources: Validity not Buzzwords, Drives Talent Assessment Success. Hogan Assessments 6/1/2019. Validate Employment Tests to Avoid Lawsuits. SHRM by Roy Maurer 5/16/2016.