[IPAC-List] Job Qualifications

rpclare at aol.com rpclare at aol.com
Tue May 11 21:13:15 EDT 2010

The issue of trade-offs is both an oversimplification and a pragmatic "shortcut". What we are really talking about is the search for demonstrated KSAO's (or whatever concepts being used) and how they might be demonstrated in a resume-type manner. So a degree in fire science may have as a substitute training/certification and experience fighting fires. More generic degrees (BA in sociology or psychology) are more difficult to connect to the job and even more challenging to accept (or reject) equivalences. A minor escape hatch would be to make your definitions ahead of time, include them in the announcement and stick to them. A standard formula (9 mos. Exp.=1 year Ed.) is easier to explain and administer but not easier to defend legally.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Dennis Doverspike " <dd1 at uakron.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 19:19:16
To: 'Julie Carswell'<jcarswell at sigmaassessmentsystems.com>; <ipac-list at ipacweb.org>
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Job Qualifications


If you do a search of the archives, you will see that this is a topic that
comes up from time to time. Your question appears a little different in that
you seem to be asking about combinations for the candidate rather than
combinations for the job, I also assume you are talking about determining
whether an applicant is minimally qualified.

In terms of combinations, I believe old posts have covered this but a common
one is one year for one year. Another option is to make the tradeoffs
consistent with the job evaluation system, if there is one.

However, in general, I tend to offer the advice that tradeoffs should be
avoided. Tradeoffs frequently lead to problems, including charges of
disparate treatment. If you are going to do tradeoffs, it seems more
defensible to set a couple of education levels first, and then set
experience levels corresponding to those tradeoffs. So, I would say rather
than setting up a formula or matrix of tradeoffs, go with a few simple

Dennis Doverspike, Ph.D., ABPP
Professor of Psychology
Director, Center for Organizational Research
Senior Fellow of the Institute for Life-Span Development and Gerontology
Psychology Department
University of Akron
Akron, Ohio 44325-4301
330-972-8372 (Office)
330-972-5174 (Office Fax)
ddoverspike at uakron.edu

The information is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential, privileged and/or a work product for
the sole use of the intended recipient. No confidentiality or privilege is
waived or lost by any errant transmission. If you receive this message in
error, please destroy all copies of it and notify the sender. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. In the case of E-mail or electronic transmission, immediately
delete it and all copies of it from your system and notify the sender.
E-mail and fax transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late
or incomplete, or contain viruses.

-----Original Message-----
From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org]
On Behalf Of Julie Carswell
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:55 AM
To: ipac-list at ipacweb.org
Subject: [IPAC-List] Job Qualifications

A private sector client of mine has been inquiring about systematic or
structured methods that might be available for combining experience and
education to determine whether a candidate is qualified to fill a specific
position. I've come across some public sector agencies that have what appear
to be compensatory formulas for combining education and experience in order
to determine whether an applicant meets qualification requirements. Does
anyone have any knowledge or experience of such systems?

Thank you!

Julie Carswell, Ph.D
Senior Consultant

SIGMA Assessment Systems, Inc.
PO Box 610984
Port Huron, MI
United States: 1.800.265.1285
<mailto:jcarswell at sigmahr.com> jcarswell at sigmahr.com
<http://www.sigmaassessmentsystems.com> www.sigmaassessmentsystems.com
<http://www.sigmahr.com> www.sigmahr.com
Research Psychologists Press, Inc.
P.O. Box 3292 , Station B
London, ON N6A 4K3
Canada: 1.800.401.4480
International: 1.519.673.0833
<mailto:jcarswell at rpp.on.ca> jcarswell at rpp.on.ca
<http://www.rpp.on.ca> www.rpp.on.ca
<http://www.sigmahr.com> www.sigmahr.com
This e-mail and any files attached hereto are confidential
and may contain privileged or copyright information. If you
have received this e-mail in error, we apologize for any
inconvenience and ask that you notify the sender immediately
via return e-mail, then delete all copies from your system.
Any dissemination or use of this information by a person
other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be

IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list