Recently, the Society of Human Resource Management conducted a study on the use of personality tests in hiring and promotion decisions. The poll indicated that 80 percent of the 495 respondents did not use personality tests for hiring or promoting employees. Yet, nearly three-quarters of the respondents indicated that personality tests can be useful in predicting job-related behavior and organizational fit. And more significantly, only a small number of respondents said their organizations were using personality tests. The most prevalent use of personality assessments, amongst those companies using them, was for testing middle management personnel.

Research tells us WHAT, but not always WHY.  Why would HR professionals state that personality tests are useful, yet not use them? Why do they use them more for mid level positions than executive positions, when executives are most likely to impact the future of the organization? 

Several potential barriers come to mind. Perhaps legal worries are a consideration.  Maybe they do not know how to use the information acquired to make good decisions. Maybe there is lack of confidence that tests of this kind can prove anything about a candidate, which, on the surface, can be a valid concern.

In repeated studies, the most accurate predictor of job success is cognitive match and work sample/ability tests because these are not subjective measures.  Either the candidate responds correctly or they do not. According to research conducted by Hunter and Hunter, the correlation of test results to future job success of ability tests is the strongest, followed by personality tests. This same study discovered that interview results have a lower correlation to job success than either cognitive or personality measures!  

Research has proven that using behavioral assessments alone for hiring positions will result in hiring mistakes. Some are better than others, of course, and when those better personality tests are combined with cognitive ability tests, validity is likely to be greater than when either is used separately. However, even the best assessment tools cannot overcome a weak screening process.  If the job has not been evaluated, nor the criteria for what constitutes the best candidate determined, the outcomes will not be optimal regardless of the assessments selected.

The key to effective pre-employment assessment is determining whether the test provides a reasonable basis for predicting the applicant’s job performance. There are several laws affecting the legality of pre-employment tests, and most are triggered by the number of employees an employer has. Employers with 15 or more employees must comply with Title VII. Title VII “prohibits unlawful employment discrimination by public and private employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, and training programs on the basis of several specified classifications.”

Title VII expressly permits the use of ability tests, including personality tests, finding personality and intelligence tests to be reasonably related to job performance and thus lawful under Title VII. An employer may administer and act on the results of any professionally developed ability test, provided the test, its administration, or the employer’s actions based on the results are not designed, intended or used to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability or national origin. The effect of using a hiring (or evaluation) tool that disproportionately eliminates minority and women applicants is called adverse (or disparate) impact. Where an adverse impact is found, the employer must show that the test at issue is job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity.

The use of validated and reliable assessment tools is critical. As indicated above, where a selection procedure has an adverse impact on the hiring, promotion, or other employment opportunities of minorities and women it may be considered discriminatory unless the test has been validated for establishing the job-relatedness of the tests.

Reliability and validity indicate to a potential user the quality and usefulness of the test. Reliability measures the probability that an individual retaking the test would obtain a similar test score – or, how dependably or consistently a test measures a characteristic. Validity refers to the specific characteristic the test measures and how well the test measures that characteristic. Both standards must be met. Valid conclusions cannot be drawn for a test score unless the test is proven to be reliable and even if a test is reliable, it may not be valid.

So what should a responsible HR manager do?  Be sure to use only professionally validated assessment tools. Hawthorne Services uses only validated and reliable instruments that are legally defensible if used as they are intended. Our assessment providers invest heavily in ongoing research and development to ensure that the assessment instruments exceed all employment assessment guidelines. Our assessments exceed the thirteen requirements set by the Department of Labor for assessments and meet all of the EEOC, ADA, DOL and Civil Rights Act requirements. The assessments are also monitored to ensure no gender, age, or ethnic bias.

To see a copy of the most recent validation studies on Hawthorne’s assessments or to receive a free copy of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Testing and Assessment Guide, contact us.

Click here to see the complete SHRM article, which includes a link to the poll.

In our previous newsletter, we shared with you that Hawthorne Technology Services is now providing a service offering that targets your specific business needs and goals. It is called A.I.M.,and includes the following components: