TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Validity in writing tests, or, keeping the charlatans out of the peanut butter
Subject:Validity in writing tests, or, keeping the charlatans out of the peanut butter From:Steven Schwarzman <StevenS -at- amdocs -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Wed, 27 Dec 2000 14:25:19 -0600
An archive search on the question of writing tests for employment candidates
shows this has been discussed in detail. One of the points made was that to
be legally defensible, such tests must be "valid", "reliable", and
"nondiscriminatory".
Two questions for you, ladies and gentlemen:
1. How can I measure the test I give to see if it meets these criteria?
(Subtext: can you help define the criteria?)
2. If I can't, and therefore can't use the test, how can I successfully
screen out the charlatans that many posters warn about?
Background:
I give the test to candidates who successfully get through the interview
with samples. I've tried to design it to reflect the skills we're really
looking for. I'm of the opinion - and I know there are other opinions - that
the single best way to see how well someone would do is to simulate, as
closely as possible, what we'd want them to do. I also think this is a good
way to help neutralize any personal biases, because it's an attempt to
measure performance, not personality.
Sometimes interviewees who seem nice and all that just can't put together
the simulated manual - they don't address the stated needs of the users, or
they leave out critical information, or they just don't have a clue. The
last thing I want is to hire them and then have to deal with the problems
that will surely result.
Now, I did see a post or two in the archive suggesting that one test
candidates by having them come out for a full day and doing REAL work. For a
variety of reasons, we can't do that, so my test tries to replicate the
skills but with commonplace subject matter (no, not peanut butter!).
But Recruiting hath forbidden this test unless it be proven valid, etc.
Thank you for your help.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Develop HTML-based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver! (STC Discount.)
**NEW DATE/LOCATION!** January 16-17, 2001, New York, NY. http://www.weisner.com/training/dreamweaver_help.htm or 800-646-9989.
Sponsored by an
anonymous satisfied subscriber since 1994.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
