COPYRIGHT 0 19% PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC. Sharf (1994) notes that biodata may attract more privacy-related scrutiny than other self-report measures. Nevertheless, evidence about the relative invasiveness of biodata is equivocal and incomplete. For example, compared to cognitive ability and work sample tests, Kluger and Rothstein (1993) found that biodata inventories were judged more favorably by applicants regarding perceived test fairness, control over behaviors that led to good scores, and beliefs that the test captured more of "who they were." Although biodata was not included in a study by Stone, Stone, and Hyatt (1989), application blanks, which are more elementary forms of objective biodata measures, were rated as least invasive of all the selection methods in the study. Conversely, Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, and Stoffey (1993) found that newly hired managers Biodata and Privacy

No abstract

This article describes a program of research investigating the relations between abilities required to perform job tasks and human error probabilities while performing these tasks. Study 1, using objectively derived human errors made in performing Air Force job tasks, evaluated an ability-requirements classification methodology and found that error rates were related to the numbers, types, and levels of different abilities required. In Study 2, subject matter expert panels used the methodology to identify the ability requirements of tasks in 2 different jobs found in each of 2 types of nuclear power plants. This study, using a task-anchored scale of human error probability, replicated the findings of Study 1, identified 2 ability requirements that cross-validated in predicting task-error probabilities across both jobs and plants, and identified other abilities specific to error probabilities in each job.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average lliour per response, Including the time for reviewing instaictlons, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regardng this burden estimate or any other aspect of this coUection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington HeaAguartens Services, Diractorata for Information Operafions and Reports (0704-0188), 121S Jefferson Davis Highway, Sutte 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware thai notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be sutiject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of Infomiatlon if it doss not dsplay a currently valid 0MB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) July 2004 REPORT TYPE SPONSOR/MONPTOR'S ACRONYM(S)ARl SPONSOR/MONrrOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)Technical Report 1148 DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ABSTRACTThe purpose of this research was to develop leadership requirements for the future Amiy. A competency framework that is used consistently throughout the force and that focuses on the functions of leadership will help align training, development, and perfomnance management processes and better convey what leaders need to do. Numerous considerations were combined to generate the framework including: Identification of the future of technological, geopolitical, and demographic factors; review of leadership theory; review of the evolution of Army leadership doctrine; identification of literature sources of leadership requirements; specification of the relationships leaders have with others; and comparisons of competency frameworks from the other military servk;es. Through an iterative process, analysts developed competencies, components, and sample actions that were then reviewed by subject matter experts. A core leadership competency framework was developed that includes eight competencies and 55 components. The proposed core leadership competency framework serves to provide an analytically based description of leader requirements for the future. The incorporation of the framework into leader development processes is discussed as well as how the framework can be presented in doctrine. IS. SUBJECT TERMS 913-684-9796Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

The privacy concerns of applicants have received much attention. However, little is known about the type of information co‐workers need and desire about applicants. This research examined the issue of privacy and selection fairness from the perspectives of potential applicants and their prospective co‐workers. Results showed that employees want to know about controllable, negative and interpersonal items concerning applicants. Also, items seen as most invasive by potential applicants were the same items that, as co‐workers, they least wanted to know. However, in some cases, individuals were interested in knowing information that they would be reluctant to reveal as applicants.