Psychological testing is perhaps one of the most important tasks conducted in the field. Psychological testing can be applied in areas such as education, organizational behavior as well as forensic psychology. In the realm of organizational psychology, testing proves especially important in two general areas—employee screening and performance appraisal. Within the realm of employee screening, the Applicant Risk Profiler (ARP) as designed by J. M. Llobet proves to be very effective.
The ARP is a tool that is intended to provide employers with a means of assessing the risk associated with employing a given individual as well as the threat the employee may pose when placed in the employment setting. This scale assesses four workplace behaviors by using 65 scaled statements. The behaviors tested include integrity, illicit drug use, compliance with workplace policies and procedures, and aggression within the workplace. The test of integrity involves the detection of the likelihood of stealing or engaging in other inappropriate behaviors. Illicit drug use is measured by the interviewee’s willingness to admit to past drug use and identification of the circumstances under which he/she is likely to use drugs.
The propensity to disregard workplace policy is assessed by asking questions about the workplace policy and the importance of compliance. Workplace aggression measures the potential for the applicant to be overly aggressive in a work environment by making statements about prior aggressive acts at work. The statements in the ARP are scaled utilizing a 5-point Likert scale and range from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree with the midpoint being labeled as Neutral.
Each of the scales is composed of 15 statements. There is an additional scale consisting of 5 statements. This scale is called the Deception scale score, which provides information on the test-takers attempt to fake the results to present/themselves in a more favorable manner. This scale proves to be both reliable and valid (Ones, Viswesvaran & Schmidt, 1993).
Another type of testing commonly done in an organizational setting is performance appraisal testing. Along this line, Kirkpatrick Management and Supervisory Skills Series provide a good measure of detecting the level of supervisory skills an employee possesses as well as other qualities which prove necessary in an organizational setting.
The Kirkpatrick Management and Supervisory Skills Series consists of seven different inventories which measure Communication Skills (CI); Human Relations (HRI); Managing Change (MCI); Management Roles (MRI); Coaching and Performance Appraisal (CPAI); Time Management (TMI); and Leadership, Motivation, and Decision-Making (LMDMI). All of the inventories are usually used to determine training needs; stimulate discussion, especially in a conference setting; evaluate training programs; provide coaching information; and for four of the tests (HRI, MRI, MCI, LMDMI) to aid in the selection of managers.
The CI is designed to measure several aspects of communication. These aspects include knowledge of communication principles and facts as well as the appropriate application of communication techniques. This scale goes on to operationally define communication, philosophy and principles, oral and written communication skills, and listening skills. The HRI is designed to examine relationships between the supervisor and the employees he/she is in charge of supervising.
This scale goes on to subdivide the assessment to examine the supervisor’s role in management, understanding and motivating employees, developing positive employee attitudes, problem-solving techniques, and principles of learning and training. The MCI is designed to cover principles, facts, and attitudes that are basic to managing change effectively. It is further subdivided into the manager’s role in change, why people resist/resent or accept/welcome change, and principles for managing change. The CPAI is designed to cover the concepts, principles, and techniques that are important for on-the-job coaching and performance appraisal and has two subscales, respectively.
The TMI is designed to cover key factors in better time utilization and delegation and has no subscales. The LMDMI was developed to cover leadership, motivation, and decision-making, and the items are grouped accordingly in an attempt to make managers more conscious of their need to be leaders.
The MRI can be used as a stand-alone in that it is a battery of inventories. The other inventories deal with a specific topic whereas this inventory contains subscales that cover eight different topics with 10 items each. The MRI measures leadership styles, selecting and training, communication, motivating, managing change, delegation, decision making, and managing time. The instrument is designed to cover the philosophy, principles, and approaches related to the effective performance of managers. These scales are both valid and reliable.
In examining my likelihood of conducting this sort of testing, I do have to say that my research has yielded the belief that both these scales prove to be extremely important in organizational testing and will offer vital information necessary to guide the organization. More specifically, ARP can be instrumental in determining the right employer-employee fit. This is vital in assuring that an organization does not expend any extra money and time training an employee who is not worthy of being employed. The Kirkpatrick Management and Supervisory Skills Series prove extremely beneficial in guiding the vision of an organization by detecting the capability of an organization.
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA : Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). Integrity testing in organizations. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations (pp. 243-246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.