[IPAC-List] A question of personality

[RPClare at aol.com]

I agree with Lance that a retake creates the impression of a second chance  
that is not provided to others who failed. I also would have concerns 
regarding  your "overly generous" interpretation. It suggests that they were not 
only given  a second chance but the requirements were also eased. 
I do believe this type of test can have a place in Civil service. We  
routinely use "non-scored" hurdles that do not impact the rankings (e.g.  
degrees, trainings, licenses, physical exams).
The magic is to clearly communicate what the rules are in advance. For my  
own benefit, I would have a clearly written "pass point" for the test. If 
that  can't be done because there is a "clinical" judgment involved, I would 
make sure  a credentialed clinician make the call (even if it's only on the 
close  ones)
 
 
In a message dated 11/20/2009 5:51:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Harry.Brull at pdininthhouse.com writes:

Folks,

I'm interested in any advice in a sticky  situation:

Recently I conducted a police lieutenant promotional process  for a 
department of approximately 100 sworn personnel. One of the components  was an 
omnibus personality inventory which I "scored". (It happened to be a  PDI 
proprietary instrument, but the situation would have been no different  with, for 
example, the California Personality Inventory (CPI) or  equivalent.)

Two of the candidates produced invalid profiles (as  evidenced by a good 
impression and response distortion scale). I asked them to  re-take the 
instrument and was able to interpret the results (although one  resulting profile 
was marginally valid and I probably was overly generous in  interpreting the 
results)

Afterwards, even though his total results  placed him well out of the 
running for promotion, one of the candidates  complained that he was unfairly 
treated. Others wondered publically why I  didn't just "fail" him for this 
portion of the process.

Two Civil  Service hearings later, I am feeling somewhat frustrated trying 
to explain  personality testing, faking, etc. to people who either don't 
understand or  don't want to understand.

So here's my questions:
*    Do  self-report measures such as personality profiles have a place in 
Civil  service procedures which must produce a rank-ordered list of  scores?
*    Are there instruments which overcome the hurdle of  faking (my 
internal experts tell me "no")
*    What should one do  with a candidate profile that is uninterpretable?

I've been asked to  recommend substitute procedures. So far I've suggested 
oral interview,  role-plays, and the Promotability index (a procedure where 
multiple raters  place candidates of numerical "rungs" of a ladder - 
candidate score is the  arithmetic average of assigned ratings).

Any ideas out  there?

Thanks,
Harry Brull
Harry Brull |  Senior  Vice-President 
PDI Ninth House
Global Leadership  Solutions

1.612.337.8233  office
1.612.414.8998   mobile
1.612.337.3695  fax
Harry.Brull at pdininthhouse.com  <mailto:First.Last at pdininthhouse.com> 

33 South Sixth  Street
Suite 4900
Minneapolis, MN 55402

www.pdininthhouse.com  


Confidentiality Notice: All information in this communication,  including 
any files or attachments, is intended for the sole use of the  individual or 
entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that  is 
confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information entitled to  protection 
and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not  the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you  have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return  email 
and delete this communication from your system. Thank you for your  
cooperation.
_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list