9:17am Nov 16 at 9:17am
The use of assessments in the workplace has been legally scrutinized in subjects such as Civil Rights, ADA, and employment opportunities. Overall the protection of assessments for the individual, the organization, and the examiner will be dependent upon the use of validity measures that ensure that the assessment used will protect anyone from discrimination.
Legal and Professional Standards for Assessment
Legal implications of assessments are most often discussed under the disparate impact theory of discrimination, indicating that the use of an assessment had an impact on a member of a protected class, either purposefully or accidentally (Ashe & Lundquist, 2010, p. 645). In addition to protecting disparate impact, examiners of job-related assessments should ensure that any assessment is inherently job-related and that there is not a less adverse or equally useful method of evaluation. Although not required by the Uniform Guidelines adopted by the EEOC, to protect disparate impact and out of an abundance of caution, examiners should ensure that they are using professionally developed assessments that have been validated within and beyond the industry and that have been examined for implicit and explicit biases that might affect a protected class.
Assessment and Organizational Change
Scott and Pearlman (2010) suggest five steps for using assessment to facilitate organizational change which includes (1) establishing guiding principles, policies, and tools; (2) develop and implement a comprehensive communication plan; (3) identify the positions requiring staffing decisions; (4) create job requirements for the targeted positions; and (5) develop and validate assessment tools" (Scott & Pearlman, 2010, p. 535).
As legal protection, Scott and Pearlman suggest some key features in the use of assessment for organizational change. To prevent a disparate impact, it is suggested that assessment tools be validated. While previous law has suggested that there is protection in professionally developed assessment, this does not preclude organizations from developing assessments that are directly related to the job and industry. In fact, it further protects the need to ensure that the assessment is inherently job related by developing assessments specifically for the industry. Additionally, Scott and Pearlman suggest developing clear job requirements with written communication and expectation, which further protects against disparate impact by operationalizing and objectifying job expectations that could be assessed.
One suggestion not presented by Scott and Pearlman that would be beneficial to examiners to prevent legal discrimination or action would be to use an ex-post impact analysis of the integrity of the assessment process to ensure the validity of the process as a whole in addition to ensuring the validity of the individual assessment tools.
References:
Ashe, R. L., & Lundquist, K. K. (2010). The legal environment for assessment. In J. C. Scott & D. H. Reynolds (Eds.),
Handbook of workplace assessment:
Evidence-based practices for selecting and developing organizational talent
(pp. 643-670). Retrieved from https://redshelf.com
Scott, J. C., & Pearlman, K. (2010). Assessment for organizational change: Mergers, restructuring, and downsizing. In J. C. Scott & D. H. Reynolds (Eds.),Handbook of workplace assessment: Evidence-based practices for selecting and developing organizational talent
(pp. 533-576). Retrieved fromhttps://www.redshelf.com
10:09am Nov 16 at 10:09am
GoodMorningDr. Shoemaker and Course Members
According to Ashe Jr., and Lundquist (2010), just about 30-years ago “the Second Circuit of Appeals” (p. 643), discussed the convergence of law and scienceof fundamental employment testing.The examination of employment assessment is adopted by the law as the result of the “TitleVII and related statutes” (Ashe Jr., & Lundquist, 2010, p. 643) however, this is not afundamentally a legal topic. Employment assessments are part of the mainstream field of industrial and educational psychology, and withitsownmethodology, the body ofresearch, its own terminology, and its own skilled professionals.The utilization of assessments in the workplace has evolved with private and public organizations. However, a rise in the utilization ofselection procedures and assessments by employers has stemmed from increasedscrutiny by enforcement agencies and the courts.The selection procedures have been put through challenges under local, state, and federal employment discrimination laws.“Under the Uniform Guidelines, tests are not required to be validated unless there is evidence of adverse impact” (Ashe Jr. & Lundquist, 2010, p. 648).
Several important court cases regarding employment assessments and it seem as if the law is stillprogressing regarding this issue. Correspondingly, employees and workers, plaintiffs and defendants need to comprehend the law with reference to the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection, Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts., The Americans with Disabilities Act, Department of Labor, Department of Justice, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, disparate impact, and disparate treatment in order to decreasetheirsubjection to legal action.“Griggs versus Duke Power Co.” (Ashe & Lundquist, 2010, p. 645)confirmed an important legal model of disparate impact as a result of evident discrimination due to evaluation testing. According to Ashe and Lundquist (2010), discrimination cases are brought in under two main theories of discriminationwhich go as follow: disparate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate treatment theory, a personclaims that he/she was purposely treated unfriendly as a conclusion of his/herprotected status. Evidence of a discriminatory motive is important to a disparate treatment case(Ashe &Lunquist, 2010). Disparate impact at the time of selection and promotion due to testing, the protected group selection or promotion rate is smaller than ¼ of themajority group. Title VII explains these employment matters, including the ADA, ADEA,and the Uniform Guidelines.Organizations utilize assessment procedures and instruments to assist them to perform human resource functions such as selection, placement, training and development, promotion, and career exploration, program evaluation, and guidance.The utilization of assessment instruments in a single-minded manner is vital to have a clear insight of needs to be measured and for what reason.
Limitations of personnel assessments andmethods fallibility of assessment scores professionally created assessments and methodsthat are utilized as a part of planned testing programs can assist organizations to select and hire more skilled and productive candidates. However, it is vital to comprehend that all assessment instruments are prone to errors, both in forecasting performance basis, such as accomplishment on the job and measuring a trait such as verbalpotential. Now, this is true for all methods and assessments, despite how standardized or objective these methods and assessment may be.However, do not anticipate any assessment or method to measure a personal characteristic or potential with flawless reliability for every individual. According to the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration (2000), you should not anticipate any assessment or method to be fully valid in forecasting performance. For example, there will becases whereas assessment score may forecast an individual to be a great employee, who is not. There may alsobe cases where a person will receive a low score and will be declined, and this person wouldliterally be a good worker and very capable.
Scott and Pearlman (2010) investigate complexities by observing organization changeissues linked to employee testing in environments of mergers and acquisition,reorganization, decrease in force (reduction-in-force), and organizational change. The authorsproposethere are distinctive staffing requirements in such cases that are essential at the time of organization change. Forexample,unrealistic deadlines, high stress, andunpredictability, these circumstances have a proneness to cause individuals to make mistakes.The proposed five steps Scott and Pearlman (2010)explained is to make sure a superior workforce. The first step is: Establishing guiding principles, policies and tools.Step 2: Develop and implement a comprehensive communication plan. Step 3: Identify the positions requiring staffing decisions. Step 4: Create job requirements for the targeted positions. Step 5: Develop and validate assessment tools.
References
Ashe Jr., R.L. & Lundquist, K.K.(2010). Assessing the potential of Individuals: The Prediction of Future Behavior.In Scott, J.C. & Reynolds, D.H. (Eds).Handbook of workplace assessment (pp. 643-670).https://redshelf.com
Scott, J.C. & Pearlman, K. (2010).Assessmentfor Organizational Change: Mergers, Restructuring, and Downsizing.In Scott, J.C. & Reynolds, D. H. (Eds).Handbook of workplace assessment.(pp. 533-576).
U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration. (2000). Testing and assessment: An employer’s guide to good practices. Technical assistanceguides. https://onetcenter.org