CHAPTER 20 TESTING AND INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION Robert D. Gatewood Robert Perloff Evelyn Perloff INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to discuss assess- ment of these five types of characteristics. In doing To a large extent performance of an organization is this, we will describe the major types of instru- dependent upon performance of its individual ments that are used for these assessments and sum- members. Because individual performance is a marize the research as to their use within function of ability, motivation, and situational fac- organizations. Because of equal employment tors (Borman, 1991), the many organizational pro- opportunity laws, significant differences in the grams that affect any of these three variables (e.g., scores of demographic groups on these assessment selection, job design, compensation, training, per- instruments may be justification for a legal review formance measurement) are important to the over- of the assessment procedures. For this reason we all well-being of the organization. They, therefore, will also comment on the legal implications of must be designed and implemented appropriately. using these devices. As an introduction we will Because each of these organizational programs use briefly describe the five types of characteristics data about characteristics of employees, a key component of their appropriate design and imple- and some of the organizational programs for which mentation is the assessment of individuals. For the data about these characteristics are used. example, pay-for-performance compensation sys- Knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) refer, tems are based upon assessment of individual/ respectively, to the amount of factual information group work performance. While these organiza- known by an individual, his or her conduct of job- tional programs have used data from the assess- specific activities such as the operation of a partic- ment of numerous characteristics of individuals, ular piece of machinery, and his or her conduct of measurement of five types of characteristics has generalized job activities such as statistical analy- been dominant in these programs: (a) knowledge, sis and verbal expression. These characteristics skills, and abilities; (b) personality; (c) physiologi- have been demonstrated to be strongly related to cal attributes; (d) attitudes; and (e)job perfor- the job performance of employees (Gatewood & mance. That is, data from at least one of these five Feild, 1998). Therefore, assessment of KSAs is types of characteristics are used in nearly every essential to programs such as recruitment, selec- program which is intended to increase employee tion, job design, training, career development, and performance. some skill-based compensation. 505 506 HANDBOOK OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Personality, which has been defined and dis- Achievement and Aptitude Tests cussed in previous chapters, refers to characteris- tics such as thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that Achievement and aptitude tests are paper-and- combine distinctly in each individual (Allport, pencil, usually group administered tests that emphasize factual information and its use in prob- 1961). Personality data have been included in lem solving. The distinction between achievement several organizational programs. For example, and aptitude is made primarily on the basis of the these data have been used in selection since the use of test results (Anastasi, 1982). Achievement development of the Army Beta test during World test results are used to assess present levels of War I. Personality data have also become knowledge, while aptitude tests are used to predict increasingly important in the implementation of future performance of individuals. In reality, the job design and work process programs, such as two types of tests are almost identical in terms of autonomous work teams and employee involve- content. ment. Because these two, and other closely related, programs emphasize ongoing work inter- actions among team members, it is commonly Cognitive Tests thought that there must be compatibility among team members in several characteristics, includ- One of the most extensively used achievement/ ing personality, in order for a team to work aptitude measures within organizations involves effectively. Additionally, personality data have cognitive ability tests, which are discussed in other also been used in leadership training and career chapters of this text as intelligence tests. Tests of counseling. this type usually tap a variety of characteristics, such as memory span, numerical fluency, general Assessments of physiological attributes, such reasoning, verbal comprehension, spatial orienta- as hearing, vision, strength, and coordination tion, perceptual relations, and logical evaluation. have been used for both selection and design of One popular example of this type of test is The work equipment and processes. Work attitudes, Wonderlic Personnel Test which is a 12-minute, such as job satisfaction and organizational com- multiple-choice instrument that consists of 50 mitment, are employees' cognitive and/or affec- items and has been printed in at least 14 different tive responses to aspects of the work forms. Although cognitive ability tests have been environment (Hulin, 1991). Therefore, attitude used in selection for over 80 years, frequency of data have been obtained in order to measure their use has diminished since the early 1970s as employees' reactions to a wide variety of organi- the result of Supreme Court decisions regarding zational programs, such as promotion opportuni- discrimination in selection. In widely publicized ties, compensation, benefits, and task activities. cases, courts found that defendant organizations, Also, measured change in attitudes has been the some of whom used the Wonderlic as a standard subject of several types of training programs, part of their selection programs, were guilty of race especially those that address the management of discrimination. The basis for these cases was that a culturally diverse workforce. Finally, job per- the use of cognitive ability tests inevitably results formance data, which are measures of various in "adverse impact," that is, a significantly larger aspects of work activities or output, are exten- percentage of minority applicants being rejected sively used in selection, promotion, training, and for employment than nonminority applicants. compensation programs. ("Adverse impact" upon a group, usually a minor- ity group, occurs in selection when the selection rate for applicants of any one demographic group is less than 80% of the selection rate of the demo- ASSESSMENT OF KNOWLEDGE, graphic group with the highest selection rate. For SKILLS, AND ABILITIES example, if 30 of 50 [60%] male applicants are selected and if the applicant pool for females is 40, Achievement and aptitude tests, application adverse impact would occur if fewer than 19 forms, interviews, and performance tests are the females are selected [40 x .60 x .80 = 19.2].) In assessment devices which have been used the most these early court cases, the organizations using the often to measure KSAs. cognitive ability tests did not have adequate evi- TESTING AND INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION 507 Table 20.1. Validity Generalization Coefficients of Cognitive Ability and Job Performance for Selected Jobs JOB TEST TYPE CORRECTED VALIDITY COEFFICIENT Computer programmer a Figure analogies .46 Arith metic reasoning .57 Total score all tests .73 First-line supervisor b General mental ability .64 Mechanical comprehension .48 Spatial ability .43 Computing and account-recording clerks c General mental ability .49 Verbal ability .41 Quantitative ability .52 Reasoning ability .63 Perceptual speed .50 Memory .42 Operator (petroleum industry) d General intelligence .26 Arithmetic reasoning .26 Police and detectives e Quantitative ability .26 Reasoning .17 Spatial/mechanical ability .17 Notes: aSchmidt,Gast-Rosenbery, & Hunter (1980); bSchmidt, Hunter, Pearlman & Shane (1979)" Cpearlman, Schmidt, & Hunter (1980)" dSchmidt, Hunter, & Caplan (1981); e Hirsh, Northrup, & Schmidt (1986). dence to support their use in selection and, subse- are hampered by a number of methodological lim- quently, failed to justify the adverse impact that itations that artificially affect the resulting validity resulted. coefficient. Among the most serious of these meth- However, more recent research on cognitive odological limitations are small sample size, unre- ability tests has consistently demonstrated that liability of the predictor and criterion measures, these tests are empirically related to job perfor- and restriction in range on both measures. Validity mance and, therefore, should be legally defensible generalization studies correct each of these meth- in selection programs. One example of such odological limitations in each of a group of previ- research is Project A, which was a seven-year ously conducted individual-company validation study to develop a selection system appropriate for studies which have used the same predictor and all entry-level positions in the U.S. Army (Camp- criterion measures. After these corrections, a cor- bell, 1990). Project A collected data from over rected validity coefficient is calculated which com- 4,000 incumbents and developed six domains of bines data across all of the previous studies. Table predictor instruments. Among these domains were 20.1 contains results of validity generalization general cognitive ability and spatial ability. Data studies that