A trait‐oriented job analysis technique based on a checklist of 33 a priori carefully defined traits that encompass elements of the physical, mental, learned, motivational and social domains of the work world is described. The analysis identifies the relevant traits, their levels and weights, in relation to overall job performance. Results of discriminability tests were supportive of the job analysis technique and indicated that incumbents of jobs requiring a particular trait scored higher on measures (predictors) of that trait than incumbents of jobs not requiring that trait. Implications of the results for personnel selection and placement are discussed.

A great deal has been learned from such inquiry and generally appears to be reflected in current assessment center practices (Spychalski, Quinones, Gaugler, & Pohley, 1997). Professional recommendations in the form of the Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Center Operations (Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines, 1989) have been developed on the basis of research, theory, and accepted practices. The guidelines list 10 "essential elements necessary for a process to be considered an Assessment Center" (p. 461). Two of these essential elements are particularly relevant to the current discussion and are paraphrased below:

The purposes of the present study were (a) to examine the comparative validity of a written job knowledge test constructed on the basis of a systematic job analysis with that of a commercial employment test selected in the absence of a prior job analysis for accounting positions and (b) to determine the fairness of each test for minority and nonminority job applicants. Results indicated that the job knowledge test was a valid and unbiased predictor of relevant criteria of job performance while the commercial employment test produced adverse impact and lacked validity. Implications of the results for future research studies and test validation efforts involving differential prediction are discussed.A highly controversial topic surrounding the use of personnel tests concerris possible black-white differences in test validity. As Boehm (1977) has noted, "because the issue is so closely tied to socially important issues of equal opportunity and fair employment, interest in possible differences in test validity has extended far beyond the profession of psychology" (p. 146).Recent reviews of investigations of test validity in samples of black and white workers focusing on both single-group and differential validity have reached different conclusions. Some investigators (Boehm, 1972; Boehm, 1977;Hunter and Schmidt, 1978;Schmidt, Berner and Hunter, 1973) have generally concluded that differences in black-white validities do not occur any more frequently than would be expected on the basis of chance alone.Requests for reprints should be sent to:

No abstract

No abstract