Some people's opinions are that they believe that Pilar who works as a Supervisor for Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC) in the San Francisco Bay Area is a cocky, rude,
arrogant bitch who needs to learn some proper manners. Some people's opinions are that they believe that Pilar is a very fussy person when she said: "I'm a very picky." and "I'm a stickler."
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Despite
"Despite the claims of test publishers, it seems likely that the overall rate of dissatisfaction is much higher than 5 percent. One need only look at the number of complainants who signed onto Sibi Soroka's MMPI lawsuit to realize that these tests are not just invasive- they are downright offensive. They contain gross intrusions into sensitive areas, and more importantly, they show little disregard for an individual's dignity and self-esteem. Nowhere is this more evident than in the way they lump the entire job-seeking population into two categories: 'recommended for hire,' and 'not recommended for hire.'
Discovering that you had been denied employment due to a poor test score would be bad enough if it happened only once, but what if there are long-term repercussions? Two possibilities exist. In the first, your score could find its way into some kind of labor pool data base much in the same way your financial history now resides in one (or more) of the three giant credit-reporting firms. Second, if integrity tests are found to be sufficiently reliable (not valid, just reliable) then their use could lead to a burgeoning population of individuals who are systematically denied employment due to their constant failures. Both of these scenarios would result in the establishment of a permanent score-derived underclass: applicants unable to find work because of their inability to jump through the correct integrity test hoops. Is this fair?
I don't think so, and I know that many, many other people feel the same way. A paper-and-pencil integrity test will never be ethically defensible until it can prove its scientific validity and that doesn't appear to be anywhere on the horizon.
Benjamin Klemimuntz may have said it best when he said:"They are dishonest towards employers because they reject many potentially productive workers, hence causing greater costs than savings, and they are dishonest toward prospective employees because they constitute an unfair method of screening."
"While acknowledging that business owners have a right to protect themselves from counterproductive and criminally inclined employees, integrity test critics question whether these paper-and-pencil confessionals are fair to the vast majority of honest job applicants. One persistent criticism focuses attention on he actual test items; they are flawed, it is argued, because they are based on unproven assumptions. A passing score cannot be achieved unless the applicant demonstrates a punitive and authoritarian attitude; leniency is unacceptable, even though there is no hard evidence linking a charitable dispositon to dishonesty. Admissions items- equally unsupported- also give rise to some devilish catch-22s and logical conundrums: If Applicant A honestly reports his past misbehaviors, he is penalized with a lower test score. Applicant B, on the other hand, can withhold equally damaging information about his past and obtain a higher score- thus being rewarded for lying. As far as the integrity test is concerned, the applicant who tries to turn his life around and plot a course on the straight-and narrow is deemed less trustworthy than the applicant who continues to lie. This kind of twisted logic should be reason enough to cast doubts on the predictive capabilities of attitudes/admissions items, but there's more: these items consistently fail to take into account the strong role that situational variables play in determining behavior. The trait-heavy nature of most integrity tests is indefensible against what many see as fundamentally a security or 'environment management problem.'
Whether or not integrity test items are based on an ill-conceived theory of honestly is still hotly debated by opposing camps of psychologists and professional researchers. Other groups (like civil libertarians) are more concerned with privacy issues raised by the tests...There is a strong possibility that many of the applicants did not want to hurt their chances for employment by maligning the test, so they stuck with a socially desirable response. (Interestingly, this kind of 'self-protecting' instinct may have helped them more than they realized: additional studies have shown that those who object more to integrity tests are more likely to receive lower scores)."
This is what Charles said.
Discovering that you had been denied employment due to a poor test score would be bad enough if it happened only once, but what if there are long-term repercussions? Two possibilities exist. In the first, your score could find its way into some kind of labor pool data base much in the same way your financial history now resides in one (or more) of the three giant credit-reporting firms. Second, if integrity tests are found to be sufficiently reliable (not valid, just reliable) then their use could lead to a burgeoning population of individuals who are systematically denied employment due to their constant failures. Both of these scenarios would result in the establishment of a permanent score-derived underclass: applicants unable to find work because of their inability to jump through the correct integrity test hoops. Is this fair?
I don't think so, and I know that many, many other people feel the same way. A paper-and-pencil integrity test will never be ethically defensible until it can prove its scientific validity and that doesn't appear to be anywhere on the horizon.
Benjamin Klemimuntz may have said it best when he said:"They are dishonest towards employers because they reject many potentially productive workers, hence causing greater costs than savings, and they are dishonest toward prospective employees because they constitute an unfair method of screening."
"While acknowledging that business owners have a right to protect themselves from counterproductive and criminally inclined employees, integrity test critics question whether these paper-and-pencil confessionals are fair to the vast majority of honest job applicants. One persistent criticism focuses attention on he actual test items; they are flawed, it is argued, because they are based on unproven assumptions. A passing score cannot be achieved unless the applicant demonstrates a punitive and authoritarian attitude; leniency is unacceptable, even though there is no hard evidence linking a charitable dispositon to dishonesty. Admissions items- equally unsupported- also give rise to some devilish catch-22s and logical conundrums: If Applicant A honestly reports his past misbehaviors, he is penalized with a lower test score. Applicant B, on the other hand, can withhold equally damaging information about his past and obtain a higher score- thus being rewarded for lying. As far as the integrity test is concerned, the applicant who tries to turn his life around and plot a course on the straight-and narrow is deemed less trustworthy than the applicant who continues to lie. This kind of twisted logic should be reason enough to cast doubts on the predictive capabilities of attitudes/admissions items, but there's more: these items consistently fail to take into account the strong role that situational variables play in determining behavior. The trait-heavy nature of most integrity tests is indefensible against what many see as fundamentally a security or 'environment management problem.'
Whether or not integrity test items are based on an ill-conceived theory of honestly is still hotly debated by opposing camps of psychologists and professional researchers. Other groups (like civil libertarians) are more concerned with privacy issues raised by the tests...There is a strong possibility that many of the applicants did not want to hurt their chances for employment by maligning the test, so they stuck with a socially desirable response. (Interestingly, this kind of 'self-protecting' instinct may have helped them more than they realized: additional studies have shown that those who object more to integrity tests are more likely to receive lower scores)."
This is what Charles said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)