Aha! Report Newsletter
Library
ERE Articles
Media Kit

	Dr. Wendell Williams quoted in "Bridging the Gap" by Allison C. Wilson

Soon to be Released: Bridging the Gap
by Allison C. Wilson:
Dr. Wendell Williams, contributing writer to Monster.com, responded, “To begin with, any type of test should be validated for use in selection. That means the company has an obligation to prove test scores predict job performance. A general mental ability test usually includes measuring your ability to figure math, define words, interpret sentences and make simple calculations — much like the tests people take to get into college, but not as extensive.

Mental alertness tests are among the best predictors of job performance. Good performers tend to be smart enough to do the job. When mental alertness scores are examined on a demographic group-by-group basis, however, individual scores tend to cluster into different averages. Since the government likes to examine group averages for evidence of adverse impact, employers should be very careful to set mental alertness cutoff points only high enough to reflect the job's needs.

For example, some employers think higher mental alertness scores are better. These people will choose a person with a 90 percent score over someone with an 80 percent score, because they think that is a better score. Not true. Does a difference of 10 percent in mental alertness lead to a big difference in job performance? Will the person with the higher score become bored with the job and leave, because it does not provide a mental challenge? What are the scores of people who are already doing well on the job? Mental alertness tests are a double-edged sword that must be used wisely. If you are using a mental alertness test in selection, be sure to hire a consultant to help set the norms.”

Across the Board

In the latest edition of "Across the Board", the article "Are Workplace Tests Worth Taking? (A) Yes, if you do them right. (B) No, because you're probably doing them wrong. (C) Both of the above." By James Krohe Jr., offers up some of Wendell Williams' insight into the test-taking business. Some of Wendell's quotes:

"A good test applied to a task for which it was not developed becomes a bad test," says Wendell Williams, managing director of ScientificSelection.com, a Georgia purveyor of organizational hiring systems.

"HR types often do not understand the limitations of the test," Williams insists. "Even its publisher says it is not for use for hiring."

"They've committed a lot of the CEO's money, and they don't want to be wrong," says Wendell Williams, managing director of ScientificSelection.com.

He [Williams] estimates that less than 10 percent of corporate America's psychological tests actually measure job fit, actually predict performance, and were designed to be used for hiring purposes.

Usually in business, Williams insists, it is the "feel" or "flavor" of a test, not its formal validity, that determines whether companies elect to use it for pre-hiring screening. Or its popularity. Decisions about screening mechanisms are often made according to the "Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong" principle.

"Motivational and psychological factors become more critical as a person gains more power in an organization," says Wendell Williams of ScientificSelection.com.

But as Williams notes, "If you allow senior management to bully you into not giving tests simply because they are senior management, you're taking a great risk."

Click here to read the article in it's entirety.