[IPAC-List] Question re: MQs

[keith.poole at phoenix.gov]

I think Rene really hit the nail on the head, to continue the carpentry 
analogy, MQs probably aren't pretty for I/O psych experts, but they work. 
The reason I think the public sector is so in love with MQs (and basic 
content validity in general) at least for local government, is that they 
are sustainable.  It's really cheap and quick and most people accept it 
(supervisors and applicants), and it can applied very quickly to a wide 
variety of jobs with the number of staff you have.   Almost any HRIS has 
an MQ screening tool without any real customization needed. There are far 
better and more powerful selection tools, but there aren't the resources 
to implement them system wide.  At best, we may use these much better 
tests and tools for a hand full of titles but that's about it.  I'm 
looking at our list of job titles posted this week, it ranges from arts & 
culture administrator, to building code examiner, forensic scientist, a 
variety of really specific IT jobs, 911 operator, supplies clerk, civil 
engineer, life guards,  etc.  How many private sector companies have that 
diverse a line of businesses and are staffed like we are?  I get it why, 
say, Target Corp can develop a really kick ass selection tool for customer 
service rep or FedEx for drivers...when you've developed it for 1 store, 
you've really developed it for 2,000 stores.  I'm not trying to set the 
bar low here, that's why we're all part of IPAC and test item banks like 
WRIB or CODESP...we are trying to set standards higher and think of 
smarter ways to select, but the reality is you must accept MQ's as your 
friend in this industry, and fine tune and nudge higher from there.


Keith Poole
Human Resources Supervisor
City of Phoenix HR Department
135 N 2nd Ave
Phoenix, AZ  85003
Phone: (602) 262-7140
Fax: (602) 495-5498
Email:  keith.poole at phoenix.gov



From:   "Shekerjian, Rene" <Rene.Shekerjian at cs.state.ny.us>
To:     "ipac-list at ipacweb.org" <ipac-list at ipacweb.org>, Bryan Baldwin 
<Bryan.Baldwin at doj.ca.gov>, 
Date:   01/24/2014 07:48 AM
Subject:        Re: [IPAC-List] Question re: MQs
Sent by:        ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org



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] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:05 PM
To: Dennis Doverspike
Cc: 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] 
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. 

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20140124/5e10ba10/attachment.htm