Psychological Testing Article Analysis

Psychological Testing Article Analysis PSY/480 Introduction
The article, The Reemergence of Personality Testing as an Employee Selection Procedure, by Donald L Caruth and Gail D Caruth which was published in the magazine SuperVision, evaluates the relevance of personality testing in the workplace today (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). According to the article personality testing, once very popular, had been in a slump until recently (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The article displays how the popularity of personality testing had decreased and then reemerged as a useful tool in the employee selection process (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). This article also shows how effective the assessments
can be and the legal aspects of them as well (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). This paper will analyze the article by summarizing the information presented within the article. This paper will also describe the types of psychological testing instruments that are central to the article and how they were utilized within the article. Finally, this paper will evaluate how effective the psychological assessment instruments used within the article could be.
Article Summary
At one time personality testing in the workplace was a very common occurrence (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009).
After World War II and the Depression era, personality testing was used in many areas of the workforce from companies looking to hire people who were extroverted and could make good salesmen to the military trying to reintegrate soldiers into civilian life (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Personality testing in the workplace continued to gain in popularity and usage until a groundbreaking case in the 1970s in the Supreme Court, Griggs vs. Duke Power Company (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). This case sparked the dramatic decline in popularity of personality testing in the workplace. The case demonstrated an occurrence of personality testing being used to help a company discriminate in the workplace (Caruth, D & Caruth, G,
2009).
In 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed which granted equal rights to everyone (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Duke Power Company began using personality tests as a pre-employment screening (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The personality tests were determined to be discriminatory in this situation. Personality tests are very useful tools in the employment process, but legally they must not be discriminatory (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The use of pre-employment testing must be equal and unbiased, not in intent but in effect, the results of the testing must be fair to all classes of people (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The case determined that pre-employment psychological testing can only be used if they relate directly to the actual job performance or functions and the employer must prove that fact (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Fear of violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and being taken to court for discrimination caused many employers to stop using psychological testing at all. In 1975 the Supreme Court ruled that a test used in the employment process must be validated (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Essentially, during the 1970s, when the country was trying to move away from the discriminatory practices of the past, the Supreme Court was saying that if an employer was using a psychological test or any other pre-employment tool, the test must measure what it is intended to measure and may not discriminate in any way (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009).
Thanks to several cases in the Supreme Court, along with the Uniform Guidelines in Employee Selection Procedures in 1978, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, many practices changed by 1980 and personality tests were put on the shelf (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009).
According to the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, any psychological test used in the employee selection process are subject to statistical validation to how much they directly relate to the job performance (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also believed that personality tests themselves are low in validity and reliability, meaning that they don’t measure exactly what they are supposed to measure, and they do not yield consistent results, the job relatedness of personality tests was also questioned (Caruth, D & Caruth, G,
2009). During recent years personality tests have made a comeback in the workplace. Many big businesses use personality tests on a regular basis (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Companies such as Wal-Mart, Best Buy, General Motors, Neiman Marcus, and Target use pre-employment personality tests (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). According to the article personality testing is a $400 million industry and it is growing increasingly popular at a rate of eight to ten percent a year with approximately 2500 different tests being used in different forums (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The most popular test is the Myers Briggs Type Indicator; two other popular tests are the Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory and The California Psychological Inventory (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The main reason that the tests have become so popular again is the development of integrity tests. Integrity tests are a form of personality tests which target the areas of a person’s personality which relate to honesty and integrity and ethics, and respect (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). These tests became so popular that it opened the door to full scale pre-employment personality testing again. Also, the resources of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are too limited to keep everyone in check (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). There are five factors that determine the EEOC’s action, the number of people being discriminated, the amount of money involved, the other cases against the employer, the type of charge and the opportunity to establish a legal principle (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Otherwise the EEOC often does not get involved. Employers often are not using these tests as a way to discriminate against employees due to race; often they are using the tests out of necessity (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). This process helps companies to hire effective, qualified, trustworthy and lasting employees and to cut down on costs due to turnover, poor attendance and dishonesty (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). There are still many problems with using personality testing in the workplace (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The same problems that existed before actually, validity and reliability, also, job relatedness, invasion of privacy, lack of sincerity by the test subjects and labeling of the test subjects (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The article concludes with making the point that there are no laws that stop employers from using pre-employment screening processes such as personality testing (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The test must be relative to the job and non-discriminatory. Even though the tests are under scrutiny as to whether or not they are accurate, valid and reliable, they are still growing in popularity (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009).
Usage of Personality
The psychological tests that were discussed within the article were Personality tests such as the Myers Briggs Type Indicator; two other popular tests are the Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory and The California Psychological Inventory (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Tests such as these are very popular in the world of personality testing. They are a paper and pencil type of test with a standard scoring system (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). There are even many forms of these types of tests online that a person can log on and take which will be automatically scored and yield results (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). According to the article it was estimated that approximately thirty percent of all companies use some form of personality testing (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). There are many other forms of psychological testing used within the workplace such as cognitive ability tests, psychomotor abilities tests, job knowledge tests, and vocational interest tests (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009).
Personality Test Effectiveness
The personality tests are often considered to have a low level of validity because many tests are objective such as the Thematic Apperception Test or the Rorschach Inkblot test and rely heavily on interpretation of both the test subject and the person administering the test (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Subjective personality tests which have a standard scoring form are much more valid, both types of tests however should be administered by a trained professional. Unfortunately, many personality tests, even subjective ones, are not very reliable either (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). They can be learned, or “steered” meaning that the test subject can answer the questions in a certain way to gain the desired result. For example the test question may ask if the individual feels comfortable talking to strangers (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). If the person is interviewing for a job as a customer service representative then he or she will answer yes, he or she feels very comfortable talking to strangers, no matter his or her real feelings. This can make the person appear extroverted when in reality they may not be (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). A person can also take the tests numerous times and learn how to answer them the proper way for the job. Therefore the tests are not considered to be reliable or valid psychological measures (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Reference:
Caruth, D., & Caruth, G.. (2009, March). the reemergence of personality testing as an employee selection procedure. SuperVision, 70(3), 9-13. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Complete. (Document ID: 1649151331).