[IPAC-List] Ideal PPT for FF

Oscar Spurlin oscar at ergometrics.org
Thu Mar 18 15:28:48 EDT 2010

Just a quick chime in here

You can mitigate adverse impact by including endurance (since not dependent
upon body size as is strength) however still significant gender difference.
For FF any job analysis I have seen or conducted suggests a passing point
way above where most clients are willing to go. However the real
unaddressed issue on this topic is how ff's tend to function as teams not as
individuals. There are individual differences in every team, and leadership
should entail making the most of it. Thus minimum standards should possibly
focus on developing an overall selection/placement system that ensures that
every ff unit has an adequate mix of skills, including physical capacity.

That being said it is still likely that you would want to set a minimum
standard for the safety of ff (majority of lost time injuries is from
low-fit ff). I usually target about 20% below what job/physiological
analysis suggests on the theory that a motivated individual can train up to
the desired level.


-----Original Message-----
From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org]
On Behalf Of Jeff Feuquay
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 8:42 PM
To: Joel Wiesen
Cc: IPAC-List
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Ideal PPT for FF

Sorry Joel, I agree, of course. My efffort at partially tongue-in-
cheek was apparently not as obvious as I thought. The intended point
was simply that it is too often convenient to avoid adverse impact by
pretending there is some magical non-discriminatory point on a
continuously predictive scale where enough is enough, regardless of
whether more is actually better.
That said, we predict so darn little of the variance in job
performance with traditional measures that we counting angels on
pinheads... It's time to use the tools our research has produced and
do our jobs way, way better. So, yes, I agree, but focus on endurance
is incremental; we need sea change.


On Mar 14, 2010, at 9:16 PM, Joel Wiesen
<jwiesen at appliedpersonnelresearch.com
> wrote:

> Hi Jeff,


> Perhaps endurance should be considered as well as maximum performance,

> given the way FFs fight fires. If focusing on max performance has max

> adverse impact, and if focusing on endurance has less adverse impact,

> then we should be particularly careful about what we choose to

> measure.


> Any thoughts from PPT users? Job analysts? Exercise physiologists?


> Joel



> - -

> Joel P. Wiesen, Ph.D., Director

> Applied Personnel Research

> 62 Candlewood Road

> Scarsdale, NY 10583-6040

> (617) 244-8859

> http://appliedpersonnelresearch.com





> Note: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. Please do not

> forward any contents without permission. If you have received this

> message in error please completely remove it from your computer and

> notify the sender. Thank you.




> Jeff Feuquay wrote:

>> Neither have I hit the current research, but I am aware of some of

>> the legal issues. Still . . . are we saying that some level of fast/

>> strong is "good enough" rather then more of those being better? As

>> in: Must have sufficient strength and speed to extract an

>> unconscious victim from a burning builiding, including a single

>> flight of stairs, prior to the victim exceeding medium-rare.

>> Candidates may substitute one year experience for each degree of

>> victim doneness, up to but not exceeding medium-well.

>> Ya know, I'm thinking I could care less the gender of the

>> firefighter who shows up at my burning house, but I want the

>> strongest, fastest one, with the best combination of judgment,

>> agility and bravery. (and a number of other competencies we know

>> are important)

>> Jeff

>> -----------------------------------------

>> Dr. Jeffrey P Feuquay, I/O Psychologist & Attorney

>> CEO of the Psychology-Law Center, LLC

>> 108 W. Walnut, Nevada, Mo 64772

>> ofc: 417-667-5076 cell: 417-549-0997

>> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Joel Wiesen

<jwiesen at appliedpersonnelresearch.com

>> <mailto:jwiesen at appliedpersonnelresearch.com>> wrote:

>> Perhaps an ideal physical performance test for firefighter would:

>> - be safe

>> - reflect job tasks

>> - provide a basis for ranking applicants, and

>> - not have undue adverse impact on women.

>> What existing tests best approximate this ideal?

>> Thanks.

>> Joel

>> -- Joel P. Wiesen, Ph.D., Director

>> Applied Personnel Research

>> 62 Candlewood Road

>> Scarsdale, NY 10583-6040

>> (617) 244-8859

>> http://appliedpersonnelresearch.com

>> <http://appliedpersonnelresearch.com/>

>> _______________________________________________________

>> IPAC-List

>> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org <mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>

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


IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list