There is something I would appreciate if you would also discuss some other issues as well regarding testing ie

A – Make sure that screening programs do not discriminate, are consistent with business necessity and are job related, non discriminatory, and can be modified to accommodate people with disabilities ?
B- Rehabilitation Act ? Protects Former Addicts and Drug and Alcohol dependent employees whose dependency does not interfere with job performance or threaten security — ***Federal and State Constitutions also require the Removal of Identifie4d drug users from classified information, national security, health and safety or which require a high degree of trust

Many don’t realize also that a simple thing as accomodation can be costly as in a recent situation where allowing a visually impaired individual the opportunity of being able to hear the test would have not cost the company 8 million dollars..

Just to clarify, my comments were simply to reinforce that it is not only mental ability tests, which would be considered to have disparate impact right out the door. Also, I certainly agree that Dr. Williams’ comment was on point and that it was equally applicable to other forms of hiring tools (e.g., interviews).

As for the MMPI, which is a clinical tool to assess emotional stability, its use has been challenged from the perspective of disparate impact, invasion of privacy and the Americans with Disabilities Act (‘ADA’). And just like any other hiring tool, courts have recognized it is often not the best tool depending on the job. Specifically, the MMPI has generally not been found to exhibit disparate impact on the basis of Title VII subgroup protections, it is recognized that the MMPI should only be administered when screening for safety-sensitive positions and the MMPI should be only administered after a conditional offer of employment has been tendered–under the ADA medical examinations can only be administered after a conditional offer of employment has been tendered. Additionally, since the MMPI is designed to identify and screen applicants on the basis of psychologically-based disabilities, under the ADA it needs to be used for jobs where it is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

As for the MMPI-1 and MMPI-2, the latter was created to get rid of some items that were overly invasive or antiquated in the older version. Notwithstanding, the MMPI-2 still contains very invasive items which should be posed only to individuals applying for safety-sensitive positions. In reality, there is not much of a legal distinction between the two instruments.

As for the conditional offer of employment, that requirement applies to all hiring tools that are medical in nature (blood pressure tests, physical examinations, interviews that ask questions about disabilities, clinical psychological tests). While each hiring tool and its use should be individually evaluated, generally most pre-employment tests are not considered medical in nature. As a result, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (‘EEOC’) and relevant case law, they need to be administered prior to a conditional offer of employment being tendered.

I trust these further comments are helpful.

With respect to disability issues, here again various hiring tools (not only intelligence tests) have the potential of impacting job applicants on the basis of their protected disability. Thus, hiring tools need to be job-related and consistent with business necessity, and employers need to invite applicants to seek reasonable accommodation in the hiring process.

I trust this information is helpful.

For example the MMPI – which have been put to the test in our Courts.. and they have ruled that the test is not often the best test to use for employment purposes due to ADA and other factors

Now, there is a rumor going around that MMPI-2 can be used, if certain guidelines are followed. I would love to hear more about that..

Anyways, I think Dr.Wendell’s answer to mine was right on the money.. In applying a test it really is a grand idea to make sure you have professionals create, prepare and administer the test; and a professional job analysis has been conducted.

I also read somewhere that there should be a conditional letter of employment before administering a test.. is that indeed true?

When a company fails the 4/5 adverse impact test, they should be able to show documentation that their test methods are based on job requirements and business necessity; and, they are pursuing equally effective tests that have less impact.

This is the reason why a professionally conducted (and documented) job analysis is suggested. And, why formal validation studies are necessary.

Interviews, personality types, motivation tests, application forms, and so forth, are all ‘tests’ and subject to the same requirements.

This is one case where the government’s guidelines and best business practices are the same thing.

Quoted ‘Although mental ability tests are valid predictors of performance in many jobs, use of such tests to make employment decisions often results in adverse impact. For example, research suggests that mental abilities tests adversely impact some racial minority groups and, if speed is also a component of the test, older workers may be adversely impacted. Similarly, use of physical ability tests often results in adverse impact against women and older persons –

not to mention these tests may cause adverse impact against individuals w/attention Deficit and other medical protected classes..

If one should decide to use Mental Ability Tests
Check http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G363.htm for examples on how to minimize adverse impact in your assessment program..

Also the DOL has a great guide to testing that can be found here http://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/empTestAsse.pdf — Note – The Guide is designed to provide accurate and important information regarding testing as part of a
personnel assessment program. It gives general guidelines and must not be viewed as legal advice.

In a sales-driven company, the level of bureaucracy plays an important role. The more flexibility you give to your sales staff to deliver the service they promised their customers, the better.

Having said that, of course the question whether a sales person can be overloaded with actually delivering the sold service will arise. But at times when corporate units could not get their act together, the sales person, being the main person in the transaction, should have the flexibility to take matters in their own hand.

My two cents worth being a newbie in sales profession.

I am presently self employed as a recruiter..

I have a passion for the sales profession….However, I was totally uninpressed with the bureaucratic corporate nonsense that takes place at some of these corporations that demotive top sales professionals who in some cases….are paid by commission.

That being said your article does not talk about why top performers…like me leave the profession…its very simple….we do not want to take financial responsiblity when in fact….other employees do not support our potential clients…..whend deals fall through due to lack of corporate support or incompentence….the sales person suffers financially and yes…….gets fired……….

It was an exciting experience but a very confrontation experience…..dealing constantly with corporations who fiddle with our pay packages…….making it difficult for us to make a decent 6 figure living……………

You can come up with various tools to weed out poor performers……….but the greed of the corporate management team will drive out the top sales performers who will seek lucrative employement elsewhere….

A sales professional is the most difficult job anyone can master. If these high priced multimillion presidents feel they can do my job dealing with difficult corporate clients….they are welcome to it……

Motivation scores tend to have lower correlations with performance than mental ability tools because they are easy to fake-good, are based on self-opinions, and do not measure actual abilities.

An occasional high correlation with a motivational test is usually due to either small sample-size or a job where ‘ability’ is less important than ‘willingness’. For example, the only situation where I can conceivably imagine a motivational validation study would have a correlation of .70, would be a job were everything else was held constant (i.e., a dufus-free zone). Otherwise, that would be a study worthy of the Guinnes Book of Records!

I agree that every test should be job-appropriate and its scores validated for the position. As far as the EEOC is concerned, my experience has been all they usually want to know is that selection tools are based on job requirements and job necessity, validated and, have minimal adverse impact on protected groups.

I agree with the fundamentals of your article but do not understand where you got those figures on mental abilities assessments and personality/behavioral assessments. Our personality tool has been proven to predict as much as 52% of the performance variance associated with a given position. By the way, this local validation study was conducted on the Financial Services Sales Manager position. It all depends on the tool under use and how important the construct the assessment measures is to being successful in the position. I do not think mental abilities assessments predict 60 – 70% in every sales role. Also, the use of such a tool for selection purposes with a stringent cut scores can be risky because of the protection offered by the ADA and ADEA. The same goes for using a value or motivation assessment. Who is to say that being motivated to serve is not as good as being motivated by money? Are someone’s values/motivations a BFOQ?

Best regards,
Nicole