That does not seem to me to be an accurate example of a work sample test. When you write an incident report, you do not go off of a sketch but rather what you actually experienced and saw directly. This does not seem to be realistic of what security officers are expected to do (i.e., remember what they saw, heard, said, etc). Is there not a problem with this?
I like the idea of a work sample test because it seems (you would hope) to be the most job relevant predictor you could select. However, I wondered after reading this article how organizations might go about scoring these work samples. While the development of work sample test seems pretty straightforward, the scoring system does not. How do organizations determine what is an appropriate “score” on a work sample test? Would these scores relate well in a predictive sense (for applicants) to those that might actually be attained by current employees?
I found this article refreshingly different and practical. They admit that work samples take time and expertise (= money) to score, but for this job component, the writing skill, the evaluation can be done remotely and as they argue, can be a very good way to validate a selection battery, especially when given to all applicants, not just those hired (so as not to restrict range.)
One concern I had with this study was that in both the work samples and the paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests spelling ability was tested. Is spelling ability critical for filling out reports? Is it possible for employees to use technology that would make spelling ability irrelevant and thus create less bias against individuals with learning disabilities?
That does not seem to me to be an accurate example of a work sample test. When you write an incident report, you do not go off of a sketch but rather what you actually experienced and saw directly. This does not seem to be realistic of what security officers are expected to do (i.e., remember what they saw, heard, said, etc). Is there not a problem with this?
ReplyDeleteThis study used image based work samples, but is this the only method for work samples?
ReplyDeleteI agree Shane. How might the methodology of this study be improved? That is, how would you make it like the real job environment?
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of a work sample test because it seems (you would hope) to be the most job relevant predictor you could select. However, I wondered after reading this article how organizations might go about scoring these work samples. While the development of work sample test seems pretty straightforward, the scoring system does not. How do organizations determine what is an appropriate “score” on a work sample test? Would these scores relate well in a predictive sense (for applicants) to those that might actually be attained by current employees?
ReplyDeleteI found this article refreshingly different and practical. They admit that work samples take time and expertise (= money) to score, but for this job component, the writing skill, the evaluation can be done remotely and as they argue, can be a very good way to validate a selection battery, especially when given to all applicants, not just those hired (so as not to restrict range.)
ReplyDeleteNot sure what I think about this article. I do not gain a sense of why work samples are useful and practical. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteOne concern I had with this study was that in both the work samples and the paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests spelling ability was tested. Is spelling ability critical for filling out reports? Is it possible for employees to use technology that would make spelling ability irrelevant and thus create less bias against individuals with learning disabilities?
ReplyDelete