3 Ways A Validation Study Makes Your Employee Selection Process Better

Posted by  Steven Jarrett, Ph.D.


All organizations need to measure the effectiveness of their selection tools. Some may not know what a validation study is and that it’s available to provide a significant benefit to your selection process, or some may think the only time to conduct one would be if there are legal challenges. However, there are many reasons to conduct a validation study that are not directly related to legal challenges. A criterion-related validation study examines the scores on a pre-employment assessment and how they correlate with performance on the job, such that one would expect that individuals who score higher on your assessment tool perform better on the job than individuals who scored lower on the assessment. This process can be used not only on assessments, but any part of your selection process.


Are Employee Assessments the Same as IQ Tests?

Posted by  Jaclyn Menendez

Recently, I was talking with a friend who was in the middle of applying for a position at a new organization. He mentioned that the latest stage of the application was an IQ test. I am always curious about employee assessment processes for organizations, so I probed a bit more and asked him what it consisted of. “Oh, you know,” he replied, “it asked me things like if I like working with other people, and if I lose my temper easily.”


How to Minimize Adverse Impact in Your Hiring Process

Posted by  Alissa Parr, Ph.D.

employee-screeningThe main goals of any hiring process are to ensure that it is effective, efficient, and fair. There are many ways to determine whether you are meeting each of these goals. For example, you could conduct a validation study to determine its effectiveness. How well is each hiring tool predicting future employee behavior? Additionally, you could look at time-to-hire metrics to assess its efficiency. Are recruiters and human resource managers saving time with the hiring process? Finally, you could calculate the level of adverse impact to ensure that the system is fair for all candidates.

Adverse impact is defined as a significantly different rate of selection which negatively impacts members of a protected group. While courts tend to focus on whether adverse impact is present or not, in reality, adverse impact is assessed on a continuum and it is often difficult to have a selection system with absolutely no adverse impact.


4 Common Pieces of Hiring Advice That Are Actually Wrong

Posted by  Alissa Parr, Ph.D.

ThinkstockPhotos-476982813Ok, I admit it…I’m completely guilty of being swayed by online advice in an area that I have little to no familiarity with. At the sign of a symptom, I’m scouring medical websites to see what ailment I’ve come down with. While some of these sources are legitimate, others are not. But even so, I’m probably not the best person to assess my symptoms and determine the gravity of them.

You can find online advice for anything these days. This is a blessing and a curse—you have lots of information at the tips of your fingers, but you also are presented with information that may not be accurate. The information conveyed may be opinions or based on anecdotal evidence. Additionally, it’s sometimes difficult to judge the legitimacy of the information. The author may have some “extra letters” following their name, but this specialized degree may have little to do with what they are commenting on. It’s important to be overly critical of advice provided online. Who is providing the information? Do they have expertise in the area? What are they basing the information off of?


Three Types of Employee Assessment Practitioners. Which One Are You?

Posted by  John Mirtich

Three_TypesI have worked in the field of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, on and off, for almost 25 years. In the last 8 years I have specialized in the field of testing and assessment for talent selection and development. During that time I have worked with many different types of clients and have made many new friends along the way. As you can imagine, all of my new friends and colleagues have a vast array of experiences and opinions when it comes to utilizing competency based assessments in the employee selection process. However, I can sum their personalities and approaches into three main types. You have the I/O Disciple, the Pragmatist, and the Bargain Hunter.


Questions (and Answers) About Adverse Impact - Part II

Posted by  Matthew O'Connell, Ph.D.

As promised, today's post will be Part II of my Questions & Answers About Adverse Impact.  In case you missed it on Tuesday, check out Part I here.  When we left off, I was addressing whether or not it's legal to use a test that has adverse impact.  So let's pick up from there:


Questions (and Answers) About Adverse Impact - Part I

Posted by  Matthew O'Connell, Ph.D.


A few weeks ago, Baldor Electric was ordered to pay a $2 million settlement for an OFCCP applicant screening discrimination case.  Investigators had determined that the company’s applicant screening process at its Fort Smith, Arkansas, facility had adverse impact on women and minorities.  So I thought it might be a good time to talk about the background of adverse impact, how to measure it, and how to make sure your hiring process is legally defensible.  But we don’t have to tackle it all at once – this is Part I, and you can read Part II right here.


When Free Pre-Employment Assessment Tests Become Expensive

Posted by  Matthew O'Connell, Ph.D.

124322561Companies use tests as part of their pre-employment selection process for a number of reasons. One of them is to efficiently screen a large number of candidates into a more manageable number. Another reason is to accurately and fairly identify individuals who are more likely to be successful on the job. The use of accurate tools in the selection process can significantly improve a company’s chances of selecting the right people.

Most studies that look at the return on investment (ROI) for improved selection processes show that the cost of more accurate screening tools is almost atrivial expense when compared to the return in terms of hiring better people who are less likely to turnover. For instance, if using a more accurate test would help you hire a salesperson who sold $100,000 more every year than another person, wouldn’t you be willing to spend $1,000 for that test? Put that way, the answer is obvious. The problem is the situation is never that simple, or at least it doesn’t seem that simple. There are two things working against us when we make decisions about comparing tests and selection systems.


The Big AI

Posted by  Amie Lawrence, Ph.D.

A friend of mine recently had a health scare. While the doctors were trying to diagnose her, people would whisper – do you think it is the “Big C?” It was like saying the word (cancer), might bring on some curse or cause everyone within earshot to be stricken with it. Many HR professionals act the same way when it comes to adverse impact. Discussions about adverse impact happen


Subscribe to Email Updates

Recent Posts


see all

Discover the cost-saving benefits of hiring the right employees, the first time.