I got tired just reading about the types of physical tests firefighters have to go through. Although I thought that this would be better for predicting maximum performance instead of typical performance.
Crazy Stat: "heart attacks account for approximately 44% of all firefighter fatalities..." I wonder if that is more than the actual fires?!?
Assessment tests were said to be more job-related and fair by applicants and the court, yet S/E measures showed to have a stronger predictability of performance. Which approach is best suited for firefighter positions if their critical tasks involve strength required skills and abilities? An assessment will not measure strength of applicants.
I agree Shane! What a long article to pretty much say strength and endurance are important for firefighters' job performance.
How might selection procedures differ for firefighters as they require the unique skill of physical ability? Do you think these selection procedures will affect the way in which applicants are recruited?
agree with Shane and Amy! :) This article ran into a dilemma that many organizations face – small numbers (females in this case) of a specific group, whether it be gender, race, etc., where they are unable to examine the validity of a predictor for that particular group. These authors were able to utilize the literature to make generalizations to females; however, what should organizations do when faced with this issue?
I think the example of firefighters reinforces the need to have assessments in our selection batteries that are job-related, right? This seems pretty straight-forward, but from my informal surveys with people in the work world, it seems so few hiring mangers actually do this. I wonder if studies show that change is moving in the right direction?
With municipalities facing increasingly tight budget constraints, do you think it makes sense for them to continue the use of task simulation tests in an attempt to reduce gender based adverse impact when less expensive criterion valid measures of strength and endurance are available?
I got tired just reading about the types of physical tests firefighters have to go through. Although I thought that this would be better for predicting maximum performance instead of typical performance.
ReplyDeleteCrazy Stat: "heart attacks account for approximately 44% of all firefighter fatalities..." I wonder if that is more than the actual fires?!?
Assessment tests were said to be more job-related and fair by applicants and the court, yet S/E measures showed to have a stronger predictability of performance. Which approach is best suited for firefighter positions if their critical tasks involve strength required skills and abilities? An assessment will not measure strength of applicants.
ReplyDeleteI agree Shane! What a long article to pretty much say strength and endurance are important for firefighters' job performance.
ReplyDeleteHow might selection procedures differ for firefighters as they require the unique skill of physical ability? Do you think these selection procedures will affect the way in which applicants are recruited?
agree with Shane and Amy! :)
ReplyDeleteThis article ran into a dilemma that many organizations face – small numbers (females in this case) of a specific group, whether it be gender, race, etc., where they are unable to examine the validity of a predictor for that particular group. These authors were able to utilize the literature to make generalizations to females; however, what should organizations do when faced with this issue?
I think the example of firefighters reinforces the need to have assessments in our selection batteries that are job-related, right? This seems pretty straight-forward, but from my informal surveys with people in the work world, it seems so few hiring mangers actually do this. I wonder if studies show that change is moving in the right direction?
ReplyDeleteWhat are some other variables in addition to fitness that you provide incremental validity relating to job performance?
ReplyDeleteWith municipalities facing increasingly tight budget constraints, do you think it makes sense for them to continue the use of task simulation tests in an attempt to reduce gender based adverse impact when less expensive criterion valid measures of strength and endurance are available?
ReplyDelete