Application 1 & 2
Application 1 – Evaluation of Two New Assessment Methods for Selecting Telephone Customer Service Representatives
1. The reliability for both the clerical and the work samples are favorable. We see in the Clerical Test that the co-efficient alpha (at .85 and .86) and the test-retest (.92) are both high so we have an acceptable degree of reliability for the test. For the Work Sample (T) & Work Sample (C) we find the inter-rater agreements to be high at with Work Sample (T) being T1=88% and T2=79% and Work Sample (C) T1=80% and T2=82%, both above the 75% normal requirement for a reliable measure. Since all three show a decent level of reliability, it would be safe for Phonemin to use them in selecting new job applicants.
2. The correlations between the tests show a low correlation between the Clerical Test and both of the Work Samples; however, there is a high correlation between the two Work Samples. The Work Samples produce very similar outcomes, with error rate and speed being non-significant and complaints significant. With the Work Samples producing similar results, those who were tactful also show concern for the customer, Phonemin should just choose one of the Work Samples along with the Clerical test to select the best applicants for new job applicants due to the similar results.
3. Current CSRs were chosen to participate in the study, since they are already in the job their effort on the test could be different than a new applicant and they most likely have gained some additional knowledge, especially when handling complaints, having been on the job for a period of time. Also, are the measures real indicators of performance? It was mentioned that the KSAOs chosen were “likely to be necessary for successful performance as a CSR” and they “their seemingly high impact on job performance” if they are not true indicator, then the test fails to predict the performance that Phonemin is looking for.
Application 2 – Conducting Empirical Validation
1. The reliability for both the clerical and the work samples are favorable. We see in the Clerical Test that the co-efficient alpha (at .85 and .86) and the test-retest (.92) are both high so we have an acceptable degree of reliability for the test. For the Work Sample (T) & Work Sample (C) we find the inter-rater agreements to be high at with Work Sample (T) being T1=88% and T2=79% and Work Sample (C) T1=80% and T2=82%, both above the 75% normal requirement for a reliable measure. Since all three show a decent level of reliability, it would be safe for Phonemin to use them in selecting new job applicants.
2. The correlations between the tests show a low correlation between the Clerical Test and both of the Work Samples; however, there is a high correlation between the two Work Samples. The Work Samples produce very similar outcomes, with error rate and speed being non-significant and complaints significant. With the Work Samples producing similar results, those who were tactful also show concern for the customer, Phonemin should just choose one of the Work Samples along with the Clerical test to select the best applicants for new job applicants due to the similar results.
3. Current CSRs were chosen to participate in the study, since they are already in the job their effort on the test could be different than a new applicant and they most likely have gained some additional knowledge, especially when handling complaints, having been on the job for a period of time. Also, are the measures real indicators of performance? It was mentioned that the KSAOs chosen were “likely to be necessary for successful performance as a CSR” and they “their seemingly high impact on job performance” if they are not true indicator, then the test fails to predict the performance that Phonemin is looking for.
Application 2 – Conducting Empirical Validation