[IPAC-List] Minimum vs Preferred Qualifications

[Lance Seberhagen]

Bryan, that's part of the frustration with MQs.  Many employers-- 
especially government employers-- do not recognize MQs as employee 
selection procedures that are subject to legal and professional testing 
standards.  However, the answer isnot to abolish all MQs-- or all 
tests-- just because some of them are not developed, administered, and 
used properly.  The answer is to identify problems and promote good test 
use.

Lance Seberhagen, Ph.D.

Seberhagen & Associates

9021 Trailridge Court

Vienna, VA 22182

703-790-0796

www.seberhagen.com <http://www.seberhagen.com>

On 1/2/2014 6:45 PM, Bryan Baldwin wrote:

>

> Good points, Lance.  I suppose if I had more faith that MQs were truly 

> /minimum/, and the standard was supported by some rigor, I would feel 

> a heck of a lot better about the whole thing.

>

> Bryan

>

> *From:*Lance Seberhagen [mailto:sebe at erols.com]

> *Sent:*Thursday, January 02, 2014 3:41 PM

> *To:*Bryan Baldwin; Ronald Clare; Graham, Erin

> *Cc:*ipac-list at ipacweb.org

> *Subject:*Re: [IPAC-List] Minimum vs Preferred Qualifications

>

> Bryan, I share your frustration, but let's not be so quick to throw 

> out all MQs.  Yes, MQs are often misused.  But, as with any other 

> employee selection procedure, when MQs are developed, administered, 

> and used properly, they can improve the efficiency and effectiveness 

> (validity) of the employee selection process.  As noted by Ron, MQs 

> are best used to screen out applicants who are obviously unfit or 

> ineligible for the job in question.  For example, MQs are especially 

> useful for providing a realistic job preview (e.g., Are you willing to 

> work rotating shifts?  Are you willing to work on weekends?), when 

> jobs have unusual demands.  MQs can also be used to assess KSAs up to 

> a point.  The key is to do it right.  The same goes for "actual tests."

>

> Lance Seberhagen, Ph.D.

>

> Seberhagen & Associates

>

> 9021 Trailridge Court

>

> Vienna, VA 22182

>

> 703-790-0796

>

> www.seberhagen.com <http://www.seberhagen.com>

>

> On 1/2/2014 5:58 PM, Bryan Baldwin wrote:

>

>     This is probably not an incredibly insightful comment, but does it

>     strike anyone else that MQs---an extremely common screening tool

>     in the public sector---are supported by, I would wager,

>     questionable evidence as to the relationship between an increased

>     amount of education/training and job performance?  Particularly at

>     the fine-grain level we use it? (e.g., must be exactly two years

>     of experience)

>

>     Combine this with the other frequently used initial tool---the

>     resume/application---and it's a recipe for an incredible loss of

>     utility on the front end.  It's enough to make me want just a

>     giant pool of candidates that have been through actual tests

>     (unproctored or not) and throw the MQs and resumes out the window.

>

>     Bryan Baldwin

>

>     Personnel Officer

>

>     California Department of Justice

>

>     Division of Administrative Support

>

>     (916) 322-5446

>

>     *From:*ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org

>     <mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org>

>     [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] *On Behalf Of *Ronald Clare

>     *Sent:* Thursday, January 02, 2014 2:44 PM

>     *To:* Graham, Erin

>     *Cc:* ipac-list at ipacweb.org <mailto:ipac-list at ipacweb.org>

>     *Subject:* Re: [IPAC-List] Minimum vs Preferred Qualifications

>

>     MQ,s are minimum qualification and are best utilized in screening

>     out candidates who ( theoretically) can't do the job. If we are

>     "testing" all candidates who meet MQs and relying on the test to

>     sort candidates, the no consideration is usually given for quals

>     above the minimum (e.g. 100% written test). However, this strategy

>     is usually used only for entry level positions. For most positions

>     we give additional credit for E&E above the minimum either in

>     quantity ( more Ed or exper) or quality (more specialized Ed or

>     targeted experience). On a " pure" T&E rating, someone who just

>     meets the minimum qual would receive a 70 (minimum passing score)

>     folks who have additional credentials would receive additional

>     credit. E.G. A liberal arts BA might give a 70 but a BA in Hr

>     might get an 80 and an Ma in HR might get a 90; 3 yrs exper in

>     customer service might be 70 but 3 yrs HR help desk might be an

>     80. Each consideration should. Be job driven and all

>     considerations should be framed in advance so we don't create

>     grading systems that are candidate driven. Sometimes more Ed or

>     exper does not add value to success in the job and should not be

>     considered.

>

>     Sent from my iPad

>

>

>     On Jan 2, 2014, at 2:04 PM, "Graham, Erin"

>     <Erin.Graham at das.ohio.gov <mailto:Erin.Graham at das.ohio.gov>> wrote:

>

>         I would like to find out how most public sector agencies

>         address preferred qualifications when they have established

>         minimum qualifications. Specifically, if you have an

>         established level of education and experience in your minimum

>         qualifications, would you be able to have a preferred

>         qualification above and beyond the MQs (e.g., MQ = Bachelor's

>         in Business Administration, Preferred qual = MBA)?  Or, do you

>         reserve preferred qualifications for a particular skill set

>         (e.g., experience with a specific software)?

>

>         We currently are seeing a mixture of both in our postings, but

>         are leaning toward preferred qualifications for a particular

>         skill set.

>

>         Thank you in advance for sharing.

>

>         _______________________________________________________

>         IPAC-List

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

>         http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

>

>

>     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.

>

>

>     _______________________________________________________

>

>     IPAC-List

>

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

>

>     http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

>

>

> 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. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20140102/4fdc5ea0/attachment-0001.htm