How Do You Know a Selection Device Is Valid
Validating the Selection Process
Gregorio Billikopf
| "A couple of years ago we started experimenting with a new hiring process for our pruning crews. I experience the but off-white way to hire pruners is through a practical test. We don't accept the problem any more than of hiring people who claim to know how to prune only to find subsequently they are on the job that they don't know. I think 10 to xv years from at present a pruning examination will be the standard for the manufacture."one |
| Vineyard Manager |
Validity is a measure of the effectiveness of a given approach. A choice process is valid if information technology helps you increase the chances of hiring the right person for the task. It is possible to evaluate hiring decisions in terms of such valued outcomes as loftier picking speed, low absenteeism, or a proficient condom record. A selection process is non valid on its own, but rather, relative to a specific purpose. For example, a test that finer predicts the piece of work quality of strawberry pickers may be useless in the selection of a capable crew foreman.
A critical component of validity is reliability. Validity embodies not just what positive outcomes a selection approach may predict, only also how consistently (i.e., reliably) it does so. In this chapter we will (1) review means of improving the consistency or reliability of the selection procedure; (2) talk over two methods for measuring validity; and (3) present two cases that illustrate these methods. First, nevertheless, let'due south consider a legal effect that is closely connected to validity: employment discrimination.
Fugitive Bigotry Charges
Information technology is illegal--and a poor business practice--to discriminate on the basis of such protected characteristics as age (40 or older), sex, race and color, national origin, disability, and organized religion. In terms of bigotry one can distinguish—to use the language of the courts—between (1) disparate treatment and (2) adverse impact. Outright discrimination, or disparate handling, involves treating people differently on the footing of a protected nomenclature.
Examples of such illegal personnel decisions are disqualifying all women from arc-welding jobs on the supposition that they cannot operate the equipment, or hiring field workers but if they were born in Mexico.
Practices that appear unbiased on the surface may also be illegal if they yield discriminatory results—that is, if they accept adverse impact. For instance, requiring a loftier school diploma for tractor drivers might eliminate more minority applicants from chore consideration. If not related to chore performance, this requirement is illegal. Even though there appears to be nil discriminatory about the practise—or perhaps even most the intent—the policy could accept an agin impact on minorities. In another example, a policy that requires all applicants to lift 125-pound sacks—regardless of whether they will be hired as calf feeders, pruners, role clerks, or strawberry pickers—might have an adverse impact on women.
Clearly, it is legal to refuse employment to unqualified—or less qualified—applicants regardless of their historic period, sex, national origin, disability or the similar. You are not required to rent unqualified workers. Employers, however, may be expected to show that the pick process is job related and useful.2
An employer can give applicants a milking dexterity test and hire only those who practise well. If a greater proportion of women passed the examination, more women would exist hired—on the basis of their examination performance, not of their gender.
If women consistently did improve than men, still, the farmer could not summarily reject time to come male person applicants without testing them. Such a exercise would constitute disparate treatment. In general, the greater the adverse bear on, the greater the burden of proof on employers to defend the validity of their selection process if it is challenged.
The Americans with Disabilities Act is likely to cause an increase in the number of chore opportunities for disabled individuals. A systematic selection approach, i where applicants have the risk to demonstrate their skills, is more likely to help you meet the requirements of this law. Instead of treating people with disabilities differently, where 1 might brand assumptions about who tin can or cannot do a job, all applicants have the same opportunity to demonstrate their abilities. In some instances, applicants with disabilities may ask for specific accommodations.
Research has shown that people tend to make unfounded assumptions about others based on such factors as elevation and attractiveness. Obtaining more detailed data about an applicant'southward merits can often assist employers overcome stereotypes and avert discriminatory decisions. For instance, I know of a dedicated journeyman welder who tin can out-weld just nigh anyone, despite his missing the meliorate part of an arm. Suggestions for interaction with the disabled are offered in Sidebar 3-1. A well-designed option approach can aid farmers brand both legal and constructive hiring decisions.
Sidebar 3-1: Suggestions for interaction with the disabled:3
(1) Speak straight to the person rather than to a companion of the disabled.
(2) Focus on the person'south eyes, non the inability. (This is especially so when speaking to someone who is severely disfigured.)
(3) Be patient. (If a person has a speaking inability, formulated thoughts may not be expressed easily. Too, be patient with the mentally retarded and those whose disabilities may reduce activity or speed of communication.)
(4) Remember, a disabled person has feelings and aspirations like everyone else (even though muscles, hearing, or eyes may not work equally well).
(5) Refrain from hasty assumptions that uncoordinated movement or slurred speech are the event of intoxication.
(half-dozen) Use slower speed but a normal tone of voice to speak with someone with a hearing impairment (no demand to shout).
(7) Do non embrace your oral cavity when talking to someone with a hearing impairment (they may read lips).
(8) Write down the message if needed, when communicating with the hearing impaired.
(9) Announce your general intentions with the visually impaired (introduce yourself, announce your deviation).
(10) Avert gestures when giving instructions to the visually dumb.
(11) Offer to cutting nutrient when meals are involved; for those with muscular disabilities, have nutrient pre-cut in the kitchen; tell those with visual disabilities where their nutrient, utensils, and so on are placed, in terms of a clock (e.g., your milk is at 12 o'clock, knife at iii o'clock).
(12) Avoid panicking if an private has a seizure (you cannot prevent or shorten it). Instead, (a) protect the victim from unsafe objects she may come in contact with; (b) avoid putting annihilation between the victim'due south teeth; (c) turn the victim's caput to the side when he relaxes; and (d) let the victim to stay where she is until consciousness is regained.
(thirteen) If you lot do offering help, brand certain it is completed (eastward.thou., don't abandon a blind person before he knows his verbal location).
(14) Recollect, the person with the damage is the expert on how he can exist helped.
Improving Selection Reliability
For a choice process to be valid, it must also be reliable. That ways the process must mensurate what it is designed to measure and practise so consistently over fourth dimension. For instance, how consistently can a Brix refractometer gauge sugar content in table grapes? How reliable is a scale when measuring the weight of a dogie? And how often does an employee choice procedure result in hiring effective workers?
Reliability is measured in terms of both (i) selection scores and (2) on-the-job performance ratings. If either mensurate is unreliable, the process will not appear to be valid. No matter how consistently workers selection apples, for example, if an apple-picking test yields different results every time it is given to the same person, the lack of examination consistency will upshot in depression validity for the overall procedure. More often, however, it is the on-the-job performance measures that lack consistency. Performance appraisals are often heavily influenced past the subjective evaluation of a supervisor (Affiliate vi).
Reliability may exist improved by ensuring that (i) the questions and activities associated with the selection process reflect the job accurately; and (2) raters reduce biases and inconsistencies in evaluating workers' functioning.4
Content errors occur when dissimilar applicants face diff appraisal situations, such as different sets of questions requiring dissimilar skills, noesis, or abilities. One applicant for the job of vineyard manager, for example, might exist asked nigh eutypa and mildew and another questioned on phylloxera and grapeleaf skeletonizer.
As applicants may do better with one prepare of questions than the other, all should be presented with approximately the same items. Content errors may be reduced past advisedly identifying the nigh of import skill requirements for that job. Some flexibility is needed to explore specific areas of different applicants' qualifications, but the greater the variance in the questions presented, the greater the potential for mistake.
Hiring decisions should not be based on partial results. It can be a fault to get overly enthusiastic about one candidate before all the results are in, merely as it is a mistake to eliminate candidates too freely. It is non unusual, for case, for a candidate to smooth during the interview process but exercise poorly in the applied test—or vice versa.
Reducing rater inconsistency
Rater inconsistency accounts for a large share of the full unreliability of a measure. Objective indicators are more likely to be reliable than subjective ones, but even they are not totally costless from scorer reliability errors (e.g., recording inaccuracies).
One manager felt his seven supervisors knew exactly what to wait for in pruning a young orchard. After a lilliputian prodding, the manager agreed to a trial. The seven supervisors and a couple of managers discussed—and later set forth to judge—pruning quality. Four copse, each in a different row, were designated for evaluation. Supervisors who thought the tree in the first row was the all-time pruned were asked to raise their hands. Two went up. Others thought it was the worst. The aforementioned procedure was followed with subsequent trees, with similar results.
In some other situation, 4 well-established grape growers and two viticulture farm advisors participated in a pruning quality report. Equally in the preceding state of affairs, quality factors were first discussed. Raters then went out and scored ten marked vines, each pruned by a unlike worker. As soon every bit a rater finished and turned in his results, to his surprise he was quietly asked to go right back and charge per unit the identical vines once more. The raters' ability to evaluate the vines consistently varied considerably. It is clearly hard for each rater to be consistent in his own ratings, and it is even more difficult to accomplish consistency or loftier reliability among different raters.
Here are eight areas where you lot can reduce rating errors:
i. Nowadays consistent challenges to applicants. You can depict up a list of chore-related questions and situations for interviews, practical tests, and reference checks (see Chapter 2). A standard gear up of comments to make when talking to applicants who bear witness an interest in the position may as well preclude uneven coverage of important information. Information technology is all too piece of cake to go excited sharing the details of the task with the first bidder who inquires, but by the time you talk to twenty others, information technology is hard to keep up the same enthusiasm. Pre-prepared written, visual, or recorded oral materials can oft help.
Rules and time limits should exist applied in a like manner for all candidates. If one foreman allows more time or gives different instructions to applicants taking a exam, resulting scores may differ betwixt equally qualified persons.
ii. Utilize simple rating scales. The broader the rating scale, the finer the distinctions among functioning levels. A scale of 0 to 3 is probably easier to piece of work with consistently than a calibration of 1 to 10 (see Figure iii-one). I notice the following mode to recall about these numbers helpful: a 0 means the applicant was unable to perform this task at all; a 1 ways that the applicant is unlikely to be able to perform this job; a 2 means the individual could do the task with some grooming; and finally, a three means the person is fantabulous and can perform this chore correctly right at present. Some raters volition add a plus or a minus to these numbers when trying to distinguish between multiple candidates, such as a two+ or a three-, and that is fine, as the bones numbers are properly anchored to begin with.
| Figure 3-i: Vineyard Pruning Quality Scorecard | ||||
| Quality factor | Rating | Weight | Score | |
| Fruiting wood pick | x4 | |||
| Spur placement | x3 | |||
| Spur number | x2 | |||
| Spur length | x2 | |||
| Closeness of cut | x2 | |||
| Bending of cut on spur | x1 | |||
| Altitude of cut from bud | x1 | |||
| Removal of suckers | x1 | |||
| Total: | ||||
Rate each category from 3 (superior), to 0 (intolerable). Then multiply rating by the weight to obtain the score. Determine what the mistake tolerance for each quality factor will exist, ahead of fourth dimension, for a given number of vines evaluated.
3. Know the purpose of each claiming. If it is hard to articulate either the reason for including a question or what a good response to it would exist, perhaps the item should be rephrased or eliminated.
four. Reduce rater bias. Raters need training, practice opportunities, and performance feedback. Utilize only constructive, consequent raters, and provide clear scoring guidelines. Finally, when possible, it helps to interruption down potentially subjective ratings into objective components. (Chapter vi, on operation appraisal, deals further with rater skills.)
5. Use multiple raters. Multiple raters may function in either a single or a sequential approach; that is, applicants may face one or several raters at a time. 1 advantage of having multiple raters for each specific step is that raters share a common basis on which to discuss applicant performance. Employing multiple raters may also force private raters to defend the logic of their questions and conclusions. Improper questioning and abuse of power may also exist discouraged.
It is all-time for multiple raters not to share their evaluations until all candidates take been seen. In that way they are more likely to develop independent perceptions, especially if they belong to unlike levels in the management bureaucracy or vary in aggressiveness. Some raters may be besides easily swayed by hearing the opinions of others. Avoiding word of the candidates until all take participated in the applied test or interview session takes self-discipline. One advantage of reviewing candidates right subsequently each performance is that perceptions are fresh in each rater'due south mind. Time for raters to take adequate notes between candidates is therefore crucial.
Sometimes raters seem more concerned with justifying their stand than with hiring the best person for the chore. This may become apparent when a rater finds only good things to say well-nigh one candidate and bad things most the residual. A skillful moderator, who is less invested in the position being filled, may assistance. This facilitator can aid depict out shy raters and assistance manage disagreement among more than aggressive ones. Positive and negative qualities well-nigh each candidate can exist jotted down or displayed where all can see. Finally, participants can disclose their rankings for farther discussion.
half-dozen. Pretest each pace of the option process for fourth dimension requirements and clarity. Trying out interviews and tests in advance helps fine-tune contents and determine fourth dimension limits. A trusted employee or neighbour who goes through the pick steps tin can suggest you on modifications that meliorate clarity or reasonableness. Moreover, the results from a pretest can be used to help railroad train raters to evaluate applicant performance.
Not infrequently, a query "matures" during successive interviews. As they repeatedly ask a question, interviewers sometimes realize that another question was really intended. The selection procedure is fairer to all if the correction is made before the actual applicants are involved.
7. Pay close attention to the applicant. Advisedly evaluating candidate functioning takes concentration and good listening skills, and then as to help raters avoid premature judgments. If as an interviewer yous notice yourself speaking more than than listening, something is amiss. Effective interviewing requires (1) encouraging the bidder to speak by existence attentive; and (2) maintaining concentration on the here-and-now. Because interviews can be such a mental drain, it is a good idea to space them then there is fourth dimension for a break between them.
8. Avert math and recording errors. Checking rating computations twice helps avoid errors. On one farm, foremen are asked to conduct and rate portions of a practical test. To simplify their task, nevertheless, the adding of scores—and factoring of weights—takes place back in the office.
We have said that it is possible for an instrument to measure out consistently yet still exist useless for predicting success on the job. Consider the farmer who hires ruby-red-pickers on the basis of their understanding of picking quality. Once on the chore, these workers may be paid solely on the basis of speed. The motivation for people to perform during the application process and in the form of the chore might be quite different. This does not mean that there is no benefit to a selection arroyo that measures performance in a very different job environment. Even when hiring for an hourly wage crew, for instance, a pruning test under piece rate conditions may be used to eliminate workers whose speed or quality are beneath a cutoff standard.
Meeting Validity Requirements
Ii important means of establishing the validity of a option instrument are the statistical and the content methods. A related consideration is "face validity"—though not really a validation strategy, information technology reflects how effective a exam appears to applicants and judges (if it is ever contested in court). Ideally, a option procedure is validated through multiple strategies. Regardless of which strategy a farmer uses, a rigorous analysis of the task to be filled is a prerequisite.
The statistical strategy
A statistical strategy (the technical term is criterion-oriented validity) shows the relationship between the test and job performance. An inference is made through statistics, commonly a correlation coefficient (a statistic that tin be used to show how closely related ii sets of data are, come across Sidebar 3-two).
For example, a fruit grower might desire to make up one's mind how valid—as a predictor of grafting ability—is a manual dexterity test in which farm workers take to quickly adapt wooden pegs in a box. If a substantial statistical relationship exists between performance on the test and in the field, the grower might want to apply the test to hire grafters—who will never deal with wooden pegs in the real job.
Sidebar 3-2
Correlation coefficients can exist used to gauge reliability or validity. The statistic essentially shows how closely associated two elements are. You cannot assume a cause-and-effect relationship just considering of a high correlation. Factors may be related without 1 causing the other. Many inexpensive, easy-to-use calculators are bachelor today that apace compute the correlation coefficient used in the statistical approach.
Correlations may range from -1 through 0 to a +1. In a linear (positive) relationship applicants who did well on a test would exercise well on the chore; those who did poorly on the test would do poorly on the job. In a negative (or inverse) relationship applicants who did well on a test would practice poorly on the job; those who did poorly on the test would practice well on the job. A correlation coefficient score shut to "0" would exist one where the exam and performance are not related in whatever way. Expect correlation coefficients that measure reliability to be higher than those that convey validity (see table below, with subjective meanings for reliability and validity coefficients).
A related factor is that of statistical significance. Statistical significance answers the question, "Are these 2 factors related by chance?" If they are not related by hazard, we would say there is statistical significance. The fewer the number of pairs compared, the higher the correlation coefficient required to prove significance. Statistical significance tables tin be establish in most statistic books. Here we see what the correlation coefficients can mean (ignoring the positive or negative sign for this purpose such as a -0.56 or a 0.48--but read equally 0.56 and 0.48):
I. For reliability:
| Correlation | Subjective Meaning for Reliability |
| r = .70 or greater | Somewhat acceptable |
| r = .80 or greater | Proficient |
| r = .xc or greater | Excellent |
2. For validity:
| Correlation | Subjective Meaning for Validity |
| r = .forty or greater | Somewhat acceptable |
| r = .fifty or greater | Adept |
| r = .60 or greater | Excellent |
The content-oriented strategy
In a content-oriented strategy, the content of the job is clearly mirrored in the selection process. This approach is useful to the degree that the selection process and the job are related. Thus, it makes sense for a herdsman who performs bogus insemination (AI) to be checked for AI skills, for a farm clerk-typist to exist given a typing test, and then on. The pitfall of this method is that people tend to be examined just in those areas that are easiest to measure out. If of import skills for the job are not tested, the arroyo is likely to be ineffective.
Face validity
"Face validity" refers to what a selection process (or individual instrument) appears to measure on the surface. For instance, candidates for a foreman position will readily see the connection betwixt questions based on agricultural labor laws and the chore. Although face validity is not a type of validation strategy, it is usually vital that a selection approach appear to exist valid, especially to the applicant. A farmer wanting to test for a herdsman'south knowledge of math should utilise exam problems involving dairy matters, rather than questions using apples and oranges. The skills could exist adamant by either approach, but applicants ofttimes resent beingness asked questions that they feel are non related to the prospective job.
Face validity is a desirable attribute of a selection process. Non only does it contribute toward a realistic job preview, it also helps eliminate negative feelings about the process. Furthermore, anyone conducting a legal review is more probable to rule in favor of selection procedures actualization relevant.
Selection Instance Studies: Performance Differences
The following case studies, i on the option of vineyard pruners and the other involving a secretarial selection, should illustrate the practical application of statistical and content-oriented validation strategies.
Statistical strategy: testing of vineyard pruners5
Tin can a examination—when workers know they are beingness tested—reliably predict on-the-job performance of vineyard pruners paid on a piece rate? Three hundred pruners—four groups on iii farms—participated in a statistical-blazon report to help answer this question. (Even though the emphasis of this examination was on statistical evaluation, it clearly would also authorize as a content-oriented test: workers had to perform the aforementioned tasks during the test as they would on the real task.)
Selection exam information. Workers were tested twice, each pruning period lasting 46 minutes. Pruners were told to work every bit fast as they could still still maintain quality. A comparison of the results betwixt the starting time and second test periods showed high worker consistency. There was a broad range of scores among workers: in one group, for instance, the slowest worker pruned just iii vines in the time it took the fastest to prune 24. No relationship was found between speed and quality, all the same. Some fast and some tiresome pruners did amend-quality work than others.
Task performance data. On-the-chore performance data was obtained from each farm's payroll records for two randomly selected days and two randomly selected grape varieties. To avert influencing supervisors or crews in whatsoever way, on-the-job data was examined after the pruning season was over. Workers who had pruned speedily on one day tended to take pruned quickly on the other. Likewise, slow workers were consistently slow.
Validity. Meaning valid relationships were found between the examination and on-the-job functioning measures. That is, workers who did well on the test tended to be the ones who did well on the job. The test was a good predictor of worker functioning on the job. Similar results were obtained with hand-harvested tomato picking.6
Some may argue that it matters little if one hires effective workers as all are paid on a piece rate basis anyway. Some of the money farmers save as effect of hiring fewer, more competent employees includes: (one) reducing the number of supervisors needed, (2) reducing stock-still costs expended per worker regardless of how effective the worker is (e.g., vacation, training, insurance) and (three) establishing a reasonable piece rate. If some workers are very slow, the piece rate will need to be raised for all workers for these to be able to make a reasonable (or even a minimum) wage.
Content strategy: secretarial selection
Our second case report illustrates a content-oriented validation strategy—used to rent a secretary to aid in my work for the Academy of California. Specific job requirements were identified.7 In developing a testing strategy, particular attention was paid to creative layout and secretarial skills that would be needed on a day-to-24-hour interval footing.
An advertisement specifying qualifications—including a minimum typing speed of 60 words per infinitesimal (WPM) and artistic ability—ran twice in the local newspaper. Other recruitment efforts were made at a nearby college.
Of the 108 complete applications received, only a few reported typing speeds beneath 60 WPM. These were eliminated from consideration. All other applicants were invited to demonstrate their artistic layout power. The quality of the artwork varied considerably among applicants, and was evaluated by 3 raters. The 25 applicants who performed at a satisfactory or better level were scheduled to move on to the next hurdle.
What applicants claimed they could blazon was at variance with their test scores (Figure 3-2). The average claimed typing speed was 65 WPM, the average tested speed about 44 WPM. The discrepancy between claimed and bodily typing speeds was large (perhaps our exam was more difficult than standard typing tests). More importantly, the exam showed that some typists claiming higher ability than others, ended up typing slower. While in that location was an bidder challenge very fast speeds, and she indeed well-nigh fabricated her typewriter sing as she typed so swiftly, 1 could place little conviction on what applicants said they could type.
Figure three-ii: Secretarial typing speeds
Actual Words
per Minute
| eighty |
|
| 60................. seventy................. 80................. xc |
Claimed Words per Infinitesimal
As a non-native English speaker, I still have some difficulties with sentence construction. For instance, I need to exist reminded that I practice non "get on my car" as I "become on my horse" (at that place is no such distinction in Spanish). We designed an advisable spelling, grammar, and punctuation test. Applicants were provided a dictionary and asked to retype a letter of the alphabet and brand necessary corrections. There was plenty of time allowed to complete the exercise.
Applicants ranged from those who constitute and corrected every error in the original letter (even some we did not know were there), to those who took correctly spelled words and misspelled them. Eight persons qualified for a final interview; three of these showed the almost potential; ane was selected unanimously by a five-person panel.
This content-oriented study also had "face validity" considering the test was direct related to the performance required on the job. The pick process revealed the differences amidst more than 100 applicants. Had applications been taken at face value and the apparent top candidates interviewed, it is probable that a much less qualified candidate would have emerged. Moreover, the excellent applicant who was hired would ordinarily not even have been interviewed: she had less secretarial experience than many others.
Summary
Agricultural managers interested in cultivating worker productivity can begin with the selection process. Any tool that attempts to appraise an applicant's cognition, skill, ability, educational activity, or even personality can itself exist evaluated by how consistent (i.eastward., how reliable) it is and past how well it predicts the results it is intended to measure (i.e., how valid).
Improving the validity of a selection approach entails designing job-related questions or tests, applying them consistently to all applicants, and eliminating rater bias and error.
A content-oriented selection strategy is 1 in which the content of the job is conspicuously reproduced in the selection process. For example, applicants for an equipment operator position should be asked to demonstrate their tractor-driving skills, ability to gear up a planter or cultivator, and other related tasks. A statistical strategy, on the other hand, studies the human relationship between a test and actual job operation. A exam may be useful even if it does not seem relevant at starting time glance. For instance, high performance on a dexterity test using tweezers may plow out to exist a good indicator of grafting skill.
The validity of a specific selection instrument can be established past statistical or content-oriented strategies. Ensuring face up validity will heighten applicants' acceptance of the procedure. The more valid the selection musical instrument, the improve chances a farmer has of hiring the right person for the job—and of successfully defending that selection if legally challenged.
A thorough employee pick approach brings out the differences among applicants' abilities for specific jobs. Farmers should not depend likewise heavily on applicant self-appraisal to make their staffing choices. In the long run, a improve choice process can help farmers hire workers who will exist more productive, take fewer absences and accidents, and stay longer with the organization.
Affiliate 3 References
1. Billikopf, G. E. & L. Sandoval, L. (1991). A Systematic Arroyo to Employee Selection. Video.
2. Compatible Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. (1978). Federal Register Vol.43-166. Aug. 25. See too Vol. 44-43 (1979) and Vol.45-87 (1980). While I could not find the Questions and Answers department in a United states of america Government Website, here is a private site with these important materials. No endorsement of the site is intended.
3. "For Those Who Serve the Public Face to Face up." Glendale Partnership Committee for the International Yr of Disabled Persons, 1981. Reprinted by the Employment Development Department, State of California, October. 1990, along with comments from Charles Wall, Americans with Disabilities Human action, Agricultural Personnel Direction Association's 11th Annual Forum, Modesto, California, March 7, 1991.
four. Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological Testing (5th ed.) (p. 120). New York: Macmillan.
v. Billikopf, G. Eastward. (1988). "Predicting Vineyard Pruner Performance," California Agriculture (Vol. 42, No. 2) (pp. 13-14).
vi. Billikopf, M. East. (1987). "Testing to Predict Lycopersicon esculentum Harvest Worker Performance," California Agriculture (Vol. 41, Nos. five & 6) (pp. xvi-17).
seven. Billikopf, G. E. (1988). Agronomical Employment Testing: Opportunities for Increased Worker Performance, Giannini Foundation Special Written report No. 88-i. (pp. 17-eighteen).
Chapter three: Boosted Resources
(one) 
Testing and Cess: An Employer's Guide to Practiced Practices, http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7labor/test_validity.pdf, U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration (1999) (80 pages). In PDF format, free PDF reader (at http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html) needed.
Library of Congress Command Number 2001092378
� 2001 past The Regents of the Academy of California
Agronomical Issues Center
All rights reserved.
Press this electronic Web page is permitted for personal, educational or non-commercial utilise (such that people are not charged for the materials) equally long as the author and the University of California are credited, and the page is printed in its entirety. We do not charge for reprints, but appreciate knowing how you are making use of this paper. Please ship us a message through the E-mail link at the acme of this page. The latest version of this chapter is available as a PDF file with photos, at no toll, and can be accessed by using the corresponding link at the top of the page. This is a public service of the University of California.
Labor Management in Ag
Table of Contents
11 August 2006
culpinthipstrealm1983.blogspot.com
Source: https://nature.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7labor/03.htm
0 Response to "How Do You Know a Selection Device Is Valid"
Post a Comment