Reading 7

Module Title: Selection Tests

This reading gives an in-depth look at the different types of selection tests employers use to

evaluate candidates before hiring. You'll explore cognitive and physical ability tests, learn how

they are designed, and see how they apply to real jobs like firefighting and law enforcement. It

also examines fairness and legal issues—especially how test results may differ across gender,

age, and disability status—and discusses how selection tools must be job-relevant and legally

defensible.

Learning Outcomes

After completing this reading, you should be able to:

• Distinguish between types of ability tests (cognitive, physical) and understand their

purposes.

• Evaluate the effectiveness and fairness of selection tests using principles like validity and

job relevance.

• Understand the legal and ethical concerns related to test use, especially regarding gender

and disability.

Key Questions to Consider While Reading

• What makes a test valid and appropriate for a specific job?

• How do selection tests differ in what they measure and how they’re used?

• What steps should organizations take to ensure their selection tools are fair and legally

sound?

Ability Tests

As a first step, we will discuss briefly what we mean when we use the term ability test. Except for physical ability tests, generally these tests measure some form of knowledge. In this chapter, we discuss devices that measure mental, mechanical, clerical, and physical abilities. Although these are the tests most often used, other ability tests—for example, musical and artistic tests—have been included in selection programs. Space does not permit us to discuss them all. Except for physical ability, ability tests are almost always paper-and-pencil tests administered to applicants in a standardized manner. They have been developed to be given to several applicants at the same time. Tests of physical abilities, as the name implies, measure muscular strength, cardiovascular endurance, movement coordination, and other physical characteristics. Usually special equipment is required for these measurements.

The devices we call ability tests have often been referred to as aptitude or achieve- ment tests. These two terms have been employed to connote slight differences in the uses of the two types of tests. Several years ago, ability tests were thought to measure the ef- fects of formal learning experiences such as courses in English grammar or computer programming. Scores were interpreted to be an indication of how much an individual knew as a result of the learning experience. Aptitude tests, on the other hand, were thought to indicate how much knowledge or skill the individual had acquired “naturally” or without formal training. Therefore, aptitude scores were to be indicative of inherent (maybe genetic) levels of WRCs.

In reality, distinctions between achievement and aptitude tests are arbitrary. All tests measure what a person has learned up to the time he or she takes the test. A distinction between formal and informal learning is meaningless. A test respondent necessarily must have learned what to write, say, or do before being able to respond to a test question. There must be previous information or acquired actions to draw on. Psychologists agree that test behaviors reflect a large degree of previous learning. Tests cannot be measures of “innate” or unlearned potential.3

For these reasons, terms such as aptitude and achievement have been replaced by the term ability. We now take a look at some types of ability tests that have been used in selection.

COGNITIVE ABILITY TESTS

Cognitive or mental ability tests were at the center of many of the early Supreme Court decisions regarding the discriminatory effects of the use of tests in selection. As we

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Selection Tests

mentioned previously, after these decisions, the use of cognitive ability tests in selection dropped significantly. HR managers were reluctant to use tests that had been implicated in disparate impact situations. However, much work in selection indicates that for almost all jobs, cognitive ability tests are related to job performance. Because of their wide use in selection and the fact that many of the principles governing the appropriate use of ability tests have been developed for cognitive ability tests, we spend more time discussing these ability tests than we do other types.

Development of Cognitive Ability Tests

To fully understand the use of cognitive ability tests in selection, it is important to know something of the history of their development. What is generally thought to be the first work on mental ability or intelligence tests was done by the French psychologists Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon from 1905 to 1911. They attempted to develop tests that would identify mentally retarded children in the French school system who should be assigned to special education classes. Most of the items that made up the tests were writ- ten through consultation with teachers in the school system. Binet and Simon sought to develop an age scale for each year between age 3 years and adulthood. An age scale con- tained a sample of curriculum questions that were appropriate for instruction at each academic grade level. For example, if the average age for children in grade 1 was 6 years, then the 6-year age scale would be composed of items learned in grade 1.

A child’s mental age was based on correct answers to the various grade-level scales. For example, if a child correctly answered the items for the first grade and incorrectly answered the items on the second-grade scale, the child’s mental age was estimated at 6 years (average age of first-grade students). Mentally retarded students were identified as those whose calculated mental age was substantially below their chronological age. Mentally superior students (gifted or genius) were those who could correctly answer questions at grade levels above their chronological ages.4

Binet and Simon’s test items involved a variety of activities: including omissions in a drawing, copying written sentences, drawing figures from memory, repeating a series of numbers, composing a sentence containing three given words, naming differences be- tween pairs of abstract terms, and interpreting given facts.5 This mental ability test was designed to be administered by a trained professional to one individual at a time. In 1916, this test was modified for use in the United States and published as the Stanford- Binet Intelligence Scale. It is modified periodically and still used extensively today. The first group-administered mental ability test to have widespread use in the industry was the Otis Self-Administering Test of Mental Ability. This test took approximately 30 min- utes to complete and consisted of written multiple-choice questions that measured such abilities as numerical fluency, verbal comprehension, general reasoning, and spatial ori- entation. The Otis served as the model for several other mental ability tests that have been used in HR selection.6

What Is Measured

Three points about the early cognitive ability tests are important for understanding this type of test. The first is the close association between the content of these tests and aca- demic achievement.7 As we just mentioned, the first mental ability test was developed using formal educational materials. Many later tests have closely followed the same strat- egy. Moreover, mental ability tests have commonly been validated using educational achievement as a criterion measure. Early studies correlated scores on a mental ability

CHAPTER 11 Ability Tests for Selection 505

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

test with such measures as amount of education completed, degrees obtained, or, occa- sionally, grade point average. The rationale was that mental ability should be related to success in school. Robert Guion has commented that it seems acceptable to equate this type of test with scholastic aptitude, meaning that an adequate definition of what is mea- sured by these tests is the ability to learn in formal education and training situations.8

The second point is that cognitive ability tests actually measure several distinct abil- ities (see Table 11.1 for a list). As we can see, the main abilities included are some form of verbal, mathematical, memory, and reasoning abilities. This clearly indicates that cog- nitive ability tests can actually differ among themselves in what is measured. All of the topics in Table 11.1 are mental abilities. However, they obviously are not the same abil- ity. What this means is that mental ability tests are not interchangeable. They could differ in the abilities that are measured because the items of the tests differ in content.

Third, a variety of scores can be obtained from tests called cognitive ability tests. General cognitive ability tests measure several different mental abilities and report scores on all items as one total score. This total score, theoretically, indicates overall cognitive ability. Other tests provide separate scores on each of the tested abilities and then add these scores together to report a general ability total score. A third type of test measures each of several separate abilities and does not combine scores into a general ability mea- sure. Instead, each of the cognitive abilities that are measured are reported individually. We now discuss one of the more famous and widely used cognitive ability tests in order to illustrate the concepts we have mentioned.

The Wonderlic Personnel Test

The Wonderlic is a multiple-choice test that consists of 50 items. The items cover vocabulary, “common-sense” reasoning, formal syllogisms, arithmetic reasoning and computation, analogies, perceptual skill, spatial relations, number series, scrambled sentences, and knowledge of proverbs. Table 11.2 contains items similar to those used in the Wonderlic. They are not part of the test itself. Statistical analysis has found that the primary factor measured by the test is verbal comprehension; deduction and numerical fluency are the next two fac-tors in order of importance.9

TABLE 11.1 Abilities Measured by Various Mental Ability Tests

Memory Span Figural Classification

Numerical Fluency Spatial Orientation

Verbal Comprehension Visualization

Conceptual Classification Intuitive Reasoning

Semantic Relations Ordering

General Reasoning Figural Identification

Conceptual Foresight Logical Evaluation

506 PART 3 Selection Measures

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

PHYSICAL ABILITY TESTS

Another area of importance for selection specialists is the testing of physical abilities of applicants for placement into manual labor and physically demanding jobs. As Michael Campion has pointed out, there are three reasons for this type of testing.39 First, EEO legislation has prompted an increase in women applicants for traditionally male- dominated physical labor jobs. Although women, as a group, score lower than men on many physical ability tests, applicants must be evaluated as individuals, not as members of a group. Individual evaluation is best done by testing all applicants on the specific physical demands that are related to the job. Second, the use of appropriate selection de- vices for physically demanding jobs can reduce the incidence of work-related injuries. The insurance, compensation, and therapy costs associated with back, knee, and shoulder injuries continue to rise dramatically. Physical ability tests should improve the selection of individuals who are better suited to job demands. Third, because the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits pre-employment medical examinations, the most feasible way to collect data about the physical status of applicants is through the use of specific phys- ical ability tests that measure the worker characteristics required by the job.

One example of the use of physical ability and cognitive ability is that of the selec- tion of fire fighters. Job analysis of these positions indicated that in large city fire service jobs, there are many technical training demands and on-the-job fire/rescue decision making requirements, that require mastery of a breadth of knowledge and understanding of engineering, science, and medical principles. In addition, there are numerous physical tasks that require strength, endurance, agility, and dexterity among other physical abili- ties. The selection battery, therefore, included a cognitive ability test and two timed tests that had various physical activities such as dragging a hose, carrying a ladder, climbing five flights of stairs in full gear, and so on. Job performance measures were gathered sys- tematically over 21 years for the validation study. These were the results of physical tests at various times over the period and annual ratings by supervisors. Both the cognitive ability test and the physical timed tests had high validity coefficients ranging from 0.72 to 0.86, both after training and during the 21-year period.40

Most physical ability tests require demonstrations of strength, oxygen intake, and coordination. In the next sections we summarize the work of two experts, Edwin Fleish- man and Joyce Hogan, who have developed test batteries that measure these characteristics.

PHYSICAL ABILITIES ANALYSIS

Edwin Fleishman and his colleagues have developed a taxonomy of 52 different abilities, both physical and nonphysical, that are necessary for performing work activities.41

We will discuss only the measurement of the nine physical abilities.

524 PART 3 Selection Measures

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Human resource selection. (2015). Cengage Learning. Created from univlime-ebooks on 2024-06-07 12:07:11.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Fleishman has identified these physical abilities, all of which have been extensively used to select employees for physically demanding jobs:42

1. Static strength—maximum force that can be exerted against external objects. Tested by lifting weights.

2. Dynamic strength—muscular endurance in exerting force continuously. Tested by pull-ups.

3. Explosive strength—ability to mobilize energy effectively for bursts of muscular effort. Tested by sprints or jumps.

4. Trunk strength—limited dynamic strength specific to trunk muscles. Tested by leg lifts or sit-ups.

5. Extent flexibility—ability to flex or stretch trunk and back muscles. Tested by twist-and-touch test.

6. Dynamic flexibility—ability to make repeated rapid, flexing trunk movements. Tested by rapid, repeated bending over and touching floor.

7. Gross body coordination—ability to coordinate action of several parts of body while body is in motion. Tested by cable-jump test.

8. Gross body equilibrium—ability to maintain balance with nonvisual cues. Tested by rail-walk test.

9. Stamina—capacity to sustain maximum effort requiring cardiovascular exertion. Tested by 600-yard run-walk.

The following validity coefficients for specific jobs are among the results reported by Fleishman for the use of these abilities in selection: pipeline workers (0.63), correctional officers (0.64), warehouse workers (0.39), electrical workers (0.53), and enlisted army men (0.87).43 All coefficients represent the correlation of a battery of two to four physical abilities with job performance.

Three Components of Physical Performance

The extensive work of Joyce Hogan has produced the three components of physical per- formance described in Table 11.9. She combined two lines of research in the develop- ment of this taxonomy. The first was data about physical requirements derived from job analysis. The second was data based on physical ability tests already developed for selection. Her idea was that by examining these two sources of information about physi- cal work performance, a comprehensive model of physical abilities could be developed.

Factor analyses were performed on several sets of data. Results consistently identi- fied three factors, or components, of physical abilities.44 The first, muscular strength, is the ability to apply or resist force through muscular contraction. Within this component are three more specific subelements: muscular tension, muscular power, and muscular endurance. The second component is cardiovascular endurance, which refers to the ca- pacity to sustain gross (as contrasted with localized) muscular activity over prolonged periods. It is aerobic capacity and general systemic fitness involving the large muscles. The third component, movement quality, concerns characteristics that contribute to skilled performance. This component also has three subelements: flexibility, balance, and muscular integration. Hogan concluded that this three-component model describes the true structure of physical abilities necessary for work activities. As such, the model

CHAPTER 11 Ability Tests for Selection 525

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Human resource selection. (2015). Cengage Learning. Created from univlime-ebooks on 2024-06-07 12:07:11.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

could be used as the basis for selection. The major issue in developing a selection pro- gram would be to determine which subset of abilities correlates with job performance for the job under study.

The importance of Hogan’s work was demonstrated in the development of a selec- tion program for seven jobs in various industries, with a total sample of 1,364 indivi- duals. These jobs were law enforcement officer, firefighter, customer gas service, pipeline construction and maintenance, pipefitter, utility worker, and utility line repair and installation. Job analyses indicated that for each of these jobs muscular strength, one of the three components of Hogan’s model, was a major factor necessary for per- forming several important tasks. A series of tests were developed. Results indicated that these tests were significantly correlated with both supervisors’ ratings of physical perfor- mance and work simulations of critical job tasks.45

Legal Issues in Testing Physical Abilities

Selection specialists working with physically demanding jobs must be especially con- cerned with three groups of applicants: females, disabled workers, and older workers. Adverse impact for scores on physical ability tests is a common occurrence for each group. Because physical ability tests emphasize strength, aerobic power, and coordina- tion, frequently males will score higher than females, the nondisabled higher than the disabled, and younger workers higher than older. A major study examined these

TABLE 11.9 Three Components of Physical Performance

Component Sub element Sample Work Activities Sample Tests

Muscular strength

Muscular tension

Activities of pushing, pulling, lifting, lowering, or carrying a heavy object

Handgrip strength, dynamometer (scored in pounds/kilos)

Muscular power

Use of hand tools, raising a section of a ladder with a halyard

Ergometer, medicine ball put (scored in pounds)

Muscular endurance

Repetitions of tool use, loading materials onto pallets

Push-ups, arm ergometer (scored in number of repetitions)

Cardiovascular endurance

None Search and rescue, climbing stairs, wearing protective equipment

Step-up time, distance run (scored in amount of time taken)

Movement quality

Flexibility Mining operations, installing light fixtures

Sit and reach, twist and touch (scored in distance of limb displacement, repetitions)

Balance Pole climbing, ladder usage, elevated construction

Static rail balance (scored in time or distance)

Neuromuscular integration

Accessing an offshore platform, intercepting an object

Minnesota rate manipulation (scored in lapsed time or target error)

Source: Based on Joyce C. Hogan, “Physical Abilities,” in Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, edited by Marvin Dunnette and Leaetta Hough (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1991).

526 PART 3 Selection Measures

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Human resource selection. (2015). Cengage Learning. Created from univlime-ebooks on 2024-06-07 12:07:11.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

differences and presented meta-analytic estimates of sex differences in physical abili- ties and the effects of selection system design, specificity of measurement, and training in possibly reducing sex differences on physical ability test scores.46 There were a number of important findings:

■ Males score substantially better on muscular strength and cardiovascular endurance tests but there are no meaningful sex differences on quality of physical movement tests.

■ Sex differences are similar across selection systems that emphasize basic ability tests versus job simulations. This suggests that developing a selection system that emphasizes basic ability tests over a job simulation (or vice versa) does not reduce sex differences.

■ Sex differences are smaller for finer rather than broader dimensions of muscular strength, and there is substantial variance in the sex differences in muscular strength across different body regions. For example, while sex differences were greatest for muscular tension, they decreased substantially for muscular endurance and muscular power. Sex differences decreased even further when muscular strength tests were specifically geared toward measuring strength in the core area of the body (that is, lumbar spine and abdominal areas). However, differences increased dramatically with tests that focused on total body strength.

■ Training was advantageous to women in the sense that women showed higher improvement scores than men on muscular strength and cardiovascular endurance tests. However, post-training d values on muscular strength decreased only slightly.

One essential issue in using physical ability in selection is that the tests must clearly be linked to critical job tasks that require physical abilities in their completion. However, this statement is complicated by the question of whether the tasks can be modified to reduce or eliminate these physical demands. Such modification can occur either through the use of additional equipment or personnel. If such modifications can be made, the use of the physical ability test appropriate for the original tasks may be unwarranted. We now briefly discuss some of the main legal issues that have been raised in court cases in which physical tests have been used in selection.

CHAPTER 11 Ability Tests for Selection 527

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Human resource selection. (2015). Cengage Learning. Created from univlime-ebooks on 2024-06-07 12:07:11.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .