[IPAC-List] Question re: MQs

[Bryan Baldwin]

Good points.  I don't necessarily disagree that MQs are bad per se.  But how many MQs are developed using sufficient rigor?  How many are truly minimums versus "nice to have"s?  And to the extent we use them as an administrative convenience, is that the right decision tool, or should concerns about getting the right person trump?  Or avoiding discrimination?

Just my observation here, but from what I've seen we (the public sector at least, and I think we could have a whole other conversation about how the private sector deals with this, e.g., UIT) do a much better job at developing traditional exams based on job analytic information.  The MQs, which strangely may be the most important step in selecting out, for some reason are treated less...seriously.

To your accounting example, could someone not gain the requisite background through other means, such as self-study or experience?  Yes, most MQs have substitution patterns, but now we're acknowledging that people can come at this from various points in life.  Rather than trying to imagine all the ways someone could qualify, would it not be better to place the emphasis on performance during the exam?  Insofar as there is a concern about luck, that may be a pass point issue.

Obviously just throwing things out here...

Bryan

________________________________
From: Shekerjian, Rene [Rene.Shekerjian at cs.state.ny.us]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 6:48 AM
To: ipac-list at ipacweb.org; Bryan Baldwin
Subject: RE: [IPAC-List] Question re: MQs

Just a few more thoughts on this:

Yes they are merit related, and yes they are a blunt instrument. But as a carpenter will tell you, sometimes you need a blunt instrument instead of a sharp one, such as to drive nails into wood.

In my experience, we need MQs as a screen. They are not meant to rank applicants or candidates. They are meant to set a lower threshold below which it is highly unlikely a person can perform successfully on the job without tailored, individualized training that goes beyond the scope of any training a qualified appointee would receive. They are also meant to limit the size of the candidate population to avoid having to sort through large numbers of candidates who can’t do the job because they lack the required knowledge and/or experience.

MQs add validity to a written test by ensuring that candidates have a minimum amount of training and/or experience. For titles that require appointees to have a minimum amount of training and/or experience in order to meet the day-one performance requirements, there is a concern that without MQs, you could have candidates who pass the test but can’t really do the job. We might think of them as people who are smart, test-wise, and who have read enough about the technical areas of the job in question to be able to pass a test. This is especially true when you consider that many civil service tests are shorter than licensing exams, which tend to be very long and comprehensive.

Take as an example an entry-level professional accounting title. With MQs that require a degree in accounting or at least 24 credit hours, you have limited the competitive field to people who are likely to have the knowledge needed to perform the duties of the job. The written test ranks them on their knowledge of accounting and maybe some other KSAs such as writing ability and the ability to work with numbers. You also avoid someone squeaking through because they have high levels of the non-technical KSAs and were able to eke out enough points on the accounting items due to having some limited knowledge of accounting and maybe making some lucky guesses.

René

René Shekerjian | Testing Services Division | NYS Department of Civil Service | 518-402-2660
======================================================================


From: Bryan Baldwin [mailto:Bryan.Baldwin at doj.ca.gov]<mailto:[mailto:Bryan.Baldwin at doj.ca.gov]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:05 PM
To: Dennis Doverspike
Cc: ipac-list at ipacweb.org<mailto:ipac-list at ipacweb.org>
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Question re: MQs

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]<mailto:[mailto:dennisdoverspike at gmail.com]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:58 PM
To: Bryan Baldwin
Cc: ipac-list at ipacweb.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%28916%29%20322-5446>


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<mailto: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<mailto: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.

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.

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/20140124/702aa034/attachment.html