Don't make hiring decisions based solely on the tests, but use them as a tool to help glean candidate information

Use the results of a personality test to question candidates about certain areas that may seem suspicious or exaggerated.

Long test with many questions tend to be more difficult for candidates to bluff.

Ensure any testing method you use has a means built in to identify numerous false answers. This can include a fake score, making test takers answer questions twice, or other mechanisms aimed at eliminating exaggerated answers.

Make sure test chosen are specific to jobs and the qualifications needed.

Carefully evaluate applicants who score high on fake scales."

Do you prefer to associate with people younger than yourself?
When you are in low spirits, do you try to find someone to cheer you up?
Do you ever argue a point with an older person whom you respect?
Do ideas run through your head so that you cannot sleep?
Have you ever had dizzy spells?
Do you tend to be radical in your political, religious or social beliefs?
Do your feelings alternate between happiness and sadness without apparent reason?
Do you feel that marriage is essential to your present or future happiness?
Are you usually considered to be indifferent to the opposite sex?
Would you like to be a church worker?
Would you like to be a minister, priest or rabbi?
Would you like to read the Bible as a way of having fun?
Would you like to have day-to-day contact with religious people?
Would you like to have day-to-day contact with very old people?
Are you concerned about philosophical problems such as religion, meaning of life, etc.?

Unlawful inquiry. Not only could these questions provide circumstantial evidence that a refusal to hire was based on age, religion, and similar factors, but many states have statutes that directly prohibit eliciting any information about race, color, religious creed, ancestry, age, sex, national origin, past handicap or disability and other prohibited criteria. Indeed, the Americans With Disabilities Act bars an employer from asking an applicant if he or she has a disability or about the nature or severity of such a disability. Disparate impact. Employment discrimination allegations against an employer using a personality test might take the form of a "disparate impact" action. In such an action, a seemingly neutral employment practice that is shown to have an adverse impact on a protected group must be defended by the employer on the bias that it is job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.

Disparate impact lawsuits should be a primary concern for employers considering personality testing. Showing job-relatedness is considerably more difficult when the test creator knows nothing about the job for which the test was used. Indeed, some of these test were not designed as employment screening devices, but rather as developmental tools for group members to better understand and work with one authors. Some were designed as directional tools to help the test taker select an occupation of his or her liking. Showing the job-relatedness of an inquiry to the position in question is even more difficult when the employer simply sends the applicant's answers off to the test creator, who then grades the tests and sends the scores to the employer. (Test creators sometimes refuse to reveal the answers considered "correct" or "functional" because of proprietary concerns.)

Proving, for example, that knowledge of relevant computer programs is related to a computer programmer's job is an achievable task. In contrast, showing th at the answer "yes" to the question "no one deserves something for nothing" is job-related to a grocery store clerk would be considerably more difficult. Likewise, proving that any particular response to the statement, "I would describe my home life growing up as happy" is job-related for any position would be, at the least, challenging.

The disparate impact problem is especially acute because the EEOC can be expected to closely scrutinize the use of personality tests. Many employers using such tests have never had a charge filed concerning their hiring process. Once any refusal-to-hire charge is filed by an unqualified applicant who took such a test, an EEOC investigation may ensure, even if the applicant did not intend to specifically change the damages, private plaintiffs' attorneys may be more likely to accept such a case. Invasion of privacy. The other key threat to the use of personality tests is the potential for an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit. The applicable law varies from state to state, but a common inquiry is whether the plaintiff was required to undergo an inquiry that a reasonable person would find offensive or objectionable. Target stores, a national retailer, used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the California Psychological Inventory as preemployment screening devices for security positions between 1987 and 1991. Among the 704 true/false questions were:

• I believe my sins are unpardonable.
• Only a fool would ever vote to increase his own taxes.
• I am fascinated by fire.
• I believe there is a God.
• I have never been in trouble because of my sexual behavior.
• I feel sure there is only one true religion.
• I am very strongly attracted to members of my own sex.
• I would like to be a florist.
• I have had no difficulty starting or holding my bowel movement.
• Evil spirits possess me sometimes.
• I go to church almost every week.
• My sex life is satisfactory.

A class action invasion-of-privacy and employment discrimination lawsuit was filed in 1989 on behalf of security applicants at Target's 113 California stores. See Sorka vs. Dayton Hudson Corp., 6 Ind. Empl. Rights Cas. (BNA) 1491 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). Without admitting wrongdoing or liability, Target recently settled the lawsuit for over $2 million.

Lawfulness, conclusion. Because personality tests vary so greatly, no strong conclusions can be drawn on their legality. At the least, an employer is better off if the test is specifically tailored to the position for which it is used and the inquiries have an understandable connection to the job.

A reasonable defense can be made for the face-to-face interviews and assessments of two finalists for a director of nursing position if the individual administering the interviews is aware of job requirements, channels inquiries, and evaluation toward those requirements, and is trained in psychological evaluation. Likewise, a two-hour simulation in which the applicants sorts through a loaded "inbox", prioritizes tasks, and deals with the most urgent demands could be considered job-related for a position requiring multiple demands with varying urgency.

It would be far more difficult to defend, on the other hand, use of standardized, computer-graded tests for all applicants when the test creators are totally unaware of the jobs at issue, and the employer does not know which answers are considered correct or what traits the test creator intended to measure.

Are personality tests effective?

Aside from the issue of whether personality tests are lawful is the issue of whether they are effective in measuring the traits they purport to measure.

One personality test asks the applicant: "Are there some people whose behavior cannot be reformed?" An applicant who answers "yes" is considered dysfunctional, and a bad employment candidate. Some cynics believe that this type of question simply measures whether the applicant fits into a psychologist notion of self-actualization, and not whether the applicant will be a good employee. Another test fires questions such as "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" and "Have you ever stolen from an employer?" over the phone in rapid-fire sequence, and asks the same question repeatedly throughout the test. Applicants must quickly respond by hitting keypads designated as "yes" or "no". The intent is that applicants who lie will trip themselves up by answering throughtfully one of the times the question is asked, or will inadvertently disclose a past theft or conviction by a delayed "no".

Some cynics believe such an approach may rule out an honest applicant with remorse over a past theft, but fail to identify a habitual thief and compulsive liar, at least one test asks the applicant if he or she has ever lied, and based on the assumption that everyone has lied at one time or another, penalizes an applicant who answers "no". George Washington would presumably be classified as a bad candidate.

The Federal Office of Technology Assessment released a report, "The Use of Integrity Tests for Pre-employment Screening" in 1990. The report, which was discussed in congressional hearings on integrity testing, concluded that the research on tests designed to measure integrity or honesty neither clearly confirmed nor clearly refuted the accuracy of the tests.

The number of personality-testing businesses has grown substantially since most polygraph tests were outlawed by Congress in 1988. Defenders of the employment testing industry assert that it is as diverse as any other group or industry, and its members range from fly-by-night operations to sophisticated professionals. Indeed, some of the skilled professionals are more offended than outsiders by the mass-production operations that are indifferent to job relatedness.

If such problems exist, the question arises why an employer would want to use a mass-produced personality test. Perhaps the answer is that such test offer a relatively cheap "black box" for hiring decisions. The difficult task of selecting among candidates is made easier, and decisions appear to be supported by scientific proof.

What can an employer do?

First, develop a thorough and uniform hiring process to help ensure that you are making sound hiring decisions. Develop a detailed application. Train supervisors on how to interview. Check references and past employers. Be persistent. Run criminal record checks.

An employer considering using a personality test from an outside source should take the following steps:

• Deal with an established, reputable organization.
• Ask the test creator if the test has ever caused employment discrimination charges, or ever been scrutinized in any investigation. Ask if there has ever been an invasion of privacy lawsuit or any other litigation involving the test.
• Ask if the test has ever been "validated" by the EEOC and, if so, the position(s) to which that validation applies. Ask for an opinion letter concerning the test's lawfulness under employment discrimination laws. Ask for an opinion letter that all the inquiries on the test are permissible in your state.
• Ask for information on precise traits the test seeks to measure and objective proof that the test actually measures these traits. If the offer of proof of validity is difficult for you to understand, it will probably be difficult for an agency, judge or jury to understand.
• Ask for an indemnification for attorney's fees and liability based on proper use of the test that results in litigation or agency investigation. Ensure that if litigation arises that the test creator will provide defense testimony at no charge.
• Don't be satisfied with oral representations of a sales person. Ask for the assurances in writing. Discuss the proposed testing with four legal counsel. Consider asking your legal counsel to run a computer search for cases mentioning the test you are considering. Finally, if you plan to use a personality test, use it as one component of your overall process and continue using other objectives screening devices.

Conclusion

There is a role for personality testing in employment decisions. The legal problems surrounding such use, however, is real and discourages many employers. There are many companies that offer pesonality-based approaches to employment decisions that are valuable and legally defensible. Most of these firms want to know something about the job for which their approach will be used. On the other hand, there are companies that over promise the validity of their screening device and underestimate exposure to lawsuits. As consumers of such services, employers must beware and use common sense in evaluating tests and test creators. "

Don't base hiring decisions solely on any one method. We have devoted our career to the development of accurate selection. We work on behalf of dozens of clients selecting important sales professionals and executives by administering a complicated series of evaluations including a structured behavioral interview, a series of skills and attitudinal tests, a sentence completion instrument and a series of real life job simulations/exercises that elicit real demonstrated skills in life-like situations evaluated by a team of experts. Similar to a tryout or an audition in the same way a musician auditions or an athlete tries out, we audition an executive. Similar procedures have been implemented in many organizations. It is the multi-method/multi-assessor process that increases predictability.

Use the results of personality tests (if they are used) to structure questions and explore certain areas that seem suspicious or exaggerated. Do not use the test alone.

Be sure any testing you do use has a mechanism for detecting fakery.

Make sure tests chosen are specific to the jobs and the qualifications needed. This is extremely difficult to do since tests measure theoretical characteristics - not competence, and this is where you are most vulnerable to legal challenges.

We have demonstrated the combination of methods to be statistically 17 times more accurate than any procedure used alone.

• Use a series of interviews with different people designated to investigate and determine different areas of skill or experience required.
• Use members of the team and subordinates to assist in the interview process. This is especially important when selecting leaders.
• As you get close to a decision, spend at least as much time acclimating the candidate as in interviewing. Do not sell a position. It is far more important that once you have decided on a person to hire that the candidate be free to choose you on an informed basis.

For more articles by Ed Yager visit http://www.yager.bizhosting.com/freebies

The process of selection, for me at least, is an absolute passion. Eighty percent of a coach's success is determined by the quality of the selection process.

Back to the Top!