A Process for Content Validation of Education and Experienced‐based Minimum Qualifications: An Approach Resulting in Federal Court Approval

Abstract

The use of education and experience minimum qualifications (MQs) is nearly ubiquitous in employment settings, yet it appears to be rare that such MQs are validated by the end user (either via content validity or criterion‐related validation approaches). In this article, we present a method of content‐validating MQs that is related to a procedure noted by Levine, Maye, Ulm, and Gordon (1997), and we demonstrate the method's application for an upper‐level management position in a state agency. Our procedure is based on adherence to the Uniform Guidelines and sound professional practice. In addition, the procedure was heard in a federal court proceeding (deposition and expert testimony in relation to 3 jobs), was approved by that court, and we discuss the court's findings. In particular, the court found, “The MQ development process used by the State Personnel Department (SPD) is consistent with the requirements of the Guidelines and leads to content‐valid MQs.” Given data available to us for another job, we also show that the obtained MQs may result in less adverse impact than a previously determined, task‐based set of MQs.

Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures

“…This evidence is judged on the basis of the relationship between the content of the experience and the content of the work requiring that experience. To justify such relationships, more than a superficial resemblance between the content of the experience variables and the content of the work is required (Buster, Roth, & Bobko, 2005). For example, course titles and job titles may not give an adequate indication of the content of the course or the job or the level of proficiency an applicant has developed in some important area.…”

Public Agency Hiring, Minimum Qualifications, and Experience

“…Developing minimum qualifications is an exercise in determining what level of expertise and skill as position requires. Minimum qualifications traditionally include education and experience requirements, but the assumptions behind the levels selected are unclear with limited exploration in the literature (Ash & Levine, 1985; Buster, Roth, & Bobko, 2005; Wooten & Prien, 2007).…”

Clarifying the Concept and Context of Content Validation

“…Murphy correctly claims that neither situation guarantees the high levels of validity (also see Buster et al, 2005;SIOP Principles, 2003). Murphy correctly claims that neither situation guarantees the high levels of validity (also see Buster et al, 2005;SIOP Principles, 2003).…”

“…argues convincingly that although content validation commonly enhances the apparent job relevance and legal defensibility of personnel selection systems, its influence on criterion-related validity is often theoretically and empirically unsupported. In part, this might be because the term content validation often reflects a mix of conceptual and legal concerns (American Educational Research Association, 1999;Buster, Roth, & Bobko, 2005;Kleinman & Faley, 1978;Wollack, 1976), and that may obscure those aspects of content validation that improve the test validation process. Murphy's main thesis is that-at its worst-the requirement for establishing a ''manifest relationship'' dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 implies that either (a) the content of relatively abstract selection tests must appear superficially relevant to job performance (e.g., a spatial test for machinists should contain pictures of gears instead of pictures of abstract shapes, even when the underlying questions are the same) or (b) the content of relatively concrete selection tests must match criterion content very closely, if not literally.…”

“…Murphy's main thesis is that-at its worst-the requirement for establishing a ''manifest relationship'' dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 implies that either (a) the content of relatively abstract selection tests must appear superficially relevant to job performance (e.g., a spatial test for machinists should contain pictures of gears instead of pictures of abstract shapes, even when the underlying questions are the same) or (b) the content of relatively concrete selection tests must match criterion content very closely, if not literally. Murphy correctly claims that neither situation guarantees the high levels of validity (also see Buster et al, 2005;SIOP Principles, 2003).…”