[IPAC-List] selection validation question

[Mike Audelo]

Megan:

I am with Mike and Dan on this one.  First step should be a review of the
Job Analysis to confirm that the job hasn't changed.


Michael Audelo
Government Solutions Consultant
PeopleAdmin, Inc 
Talent Management Made Easy
www.peopleadmin.com
michael.audelo at peopleadmin.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use
of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or
disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the
communication.



-----Original Message-----
From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org]
On Behalf Of Dan Ispas
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:10 PM
To: mpaul2 at unl.edu
Cc: IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] selection validation question

Megan,
I'm pretty sure the UG don't talk about validity generalization. A new job
analysis is a good idea, especially from a legal standpoint.

Dan

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 15:54, Blair, Michael D[EQ] <
Michael.D.Blair at embarq.com> wrote:


> Megan -

>

> Sounds to me like you're getting caught in the company's process, not the

> Uniform Guidelines.  Assuming you have a sufficient sample size and good

> criterion measures, you do not need to do any other validation study.  In

> fact, a local criterion-validity study is going to trump any other

validity

> study 99% of the time.  The consultant was correct concerning the job

> analysis.  If the job analysis is out of date, then you need to update it,

> since it forms the foundation for the validity study.  The job analysis

will

> determine appropriate test content, appropriate criterion measures, and

can

> also be useful in determining test weights, test model (e.g., compensatory

> vs. hurdle), etc.  You're clearly concerned enough about the differences

in

> the job then versus now that you want a new validation study.  Logically,

a

> new job analysis is also warranted.

>

>

> Michael D. Blair

> Manager, Recruitment, Selection & Assessment

> EMBARQ

> Voice: 913-345-6334  |  Cell: 913-832-6130  |  Fax: 913-345-6417

> Email: Michael.D.Blair at embarq.com

> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/blairmichaeld

>

>

>

> This e-mail is the property of EMBARQ and may contain confidential and

> privileged material for the sole use of the intended

> recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is

> strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended

> recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the

> sender and delete all copies of the message.

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org]

> On Behalf Of Megan Paul

> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:04 PM

> To: IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> Subject: [IPAC-List] selection validation question

>

> I am currently considering the use of a commercially available selection

> tool (vendor and tool shall rename nameless). An in-house

criterion-related

> validation study was done on the test many years ago, but the test was

never

> implemented. The job has since changed enough that I would not feel

> comfortable implementing the test on the basis of the old results.

>

> When I recently spoke with the one of the company's consultants and said

> that I wanted to do another criterion-related validity study, this time

> using their assistance with analyses, I was told that the research process

> needed to start with a job analysis and validity generalization research

> (both done by said company and requiring a significant amount of time on

> their part and my client's). The criterion-related validation is

apparently

> considered a "follow-up" to all the other work. When I said I only wanted

to

> do the criterion-related validation portion (a simple and quick concurrent

> validation), she told me that the company has to do the job analysis and

> validity generalization first, because "that's what the Uniform Guidelines

> require."

>

> There's a lot I could say here, but I will just start with a question.

> Reactions??

>

> --

> Megan E. Paul, Ph.D.

> Research Assistant Professor

> University of Nebraska-Lincoln

> Center on Children, Families, and the Law

> 206 S. 13th Street, Suite 1000

> Lincoln, NE 68588-0227

>

> (402) 472-9812 Office

> (402) 472-8412 Fax

>

>

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

>

>

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

>




-- 
Dan Ispas, M.A., A.B.D.
Doctoral Candidate
Industrial/Organizational Psychology Program
University of South Florida
4202 E Fowler Ave PCD 4118G
Tampa, FL 33620
_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list