[IPAC-List] Question re: MQs

[Jeff Feuquay]

Hard to fault Dennis' thought that merit is often operationally defined as
high score on a test. However, it's also a spectacularly circular
definition, unless one can demonstrate that the test reflects/predicts some
important aspect of job performance. And, there's the rub. We seem to have
problems defining or describing or agreeing to what's important on the job.
. . widget production, not irritating co-workers, initiative,
representation of the populace, friend of the administration, remaining
awake.

When teaching an HR class at a regional university many years ago, I was
asked what good job analysis does. I had difficulty getting its value
through to the student. But, this may be it - job analysis tells us what
merit means in a particular job and in a particular environment. Yes, yes,
a fire fighter is a fire fighter on most elements of the job, but local
subtleties can mean the difference between success and failure, i.e., merit.


Jeff
-----------------------------------------
Dr. Jeffrey P Feuquay, I/O Psychologist & Attorney
Director, Psychology-Law Center, LLC and
Special Counsel to Russell, Brown & Breckenridge, LLC
108 W. Walnut, PO Box 376, Nevada, MO 64772
ofc: 417-667-5076    fax: 417-667-3013



On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Shekerjian, Rene <
Rene.Shekerjian at cs.state.ny.us> wrote:


>  Here in New York, some of us (not lawyers, but maybe lawyers also)

>  consider the MQs to be part of the examination, as they are considered to

> be the first hurdle that can remove some job seekers from consideration. We

> also find that MQs that are too low for the job can throw off the written

> test statistics, such as item analysis.

>

>

>

> René

>

>

>

> René Shekerjian | Testing Services Division | NYS Department of Civil

> Service | 518-402-2660

>

> ======================================================================

>

>

>

> *From:* Dennis Doverspike [mailto:dennisdoverspike at gmail.com]

> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:33 PM

> *To:* Bryan Baldwin

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

> *Subject:* Re: [IPAC-List] Question re: MQs

>

>

>

> I have long thought this would make an interesting paper or symposium topic

>

>

>

> my short answer - without being a lawyer or political scientist - is that

> merit is often operationally defined as "the result of a competitive

> examination." by definition then merit excludes having met the minimum

> qualification

>

>

>

> I have argued before, however, that we do not give enough though to the

> definition of merit - especially in compensation and pay equity. It also

> seems as if the Canadians have done far more in terms of defining merit -

> as I remember from a previous Hammer post on the definition of merit in

> Canada.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Bryan Baldwin <Bryan.Baldwin at doj.ca.gov>

> wrote:

>

> No, I don’t believe so.  “Merit” in this sense refers to the decades-old

> concept that was put in place to remedy/avoid historical civil service sins

> such as political patronage.  It does, however, encompass the concept of

> being “qualified”.

>

>

>

> B

>

>

>

> *From:* Dennis Doverspike [mailto:dennisdoverspike at gmail.com]

> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:58 PM

> *To:* Bryan Baldwin

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

> *Subject:* Re: [IPAC-List] Question re: MQs

>

>

>

> Bryan - what do you mean by merit-related? would that correspond to

> job-related?

>

>

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Bryan Baldwin <Bryan.Baldwin at doj.ca.gov>

> wrote:

>

> Hi all – question sorta related to a conversation we were having a few

> weeks ago: can anyone point me to any articles, studies, etc. that analyze

> the issue of whether minimum qualifications are merit-related?  I have done

> my best to point out that I believe they are—at best—a blunt instrument.

> But I could sure use more heads on this one.

>

>

>

> Thank you-

>

>

>

> Bryan Baldwin

>

> Personnel Officer

>

> California Department of Justice

>

> Division of Administrative Support

>

> (916) 322-5446

>

>

>

>

> 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

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

>

>

>

>

>

> --

> Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP

> Licensed Psychologist, #3539 (OHIO)

> Independent Consultant

> Professor of Psychology, University of Akron

> dennisdoverspike at gmail.com

>

> 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.

>

>

> 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.

>

>

>

>

>

> --

> Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP

> Licensed Psychologist, #3539 (OHIO)

> Independent Consultant

> Professor of Psychology, University of Akron

> dennisdoverspike at gmail.com

>

> 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.

>

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

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

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20140122/c33237d1/attachment.htm