Legality and Validity

Legality

The Achiever is the updated assessment previously titled The Profile. It was developed and validated by James E. Moore, Ph.D., formerly of Purdue University, along with other prominent psychologists, for Communications Institute of America of Dallas.

Subsequently, the technical expertise of Mr. Roger Pryor, Master of Psychology; Dr. Max Fogel, Licensed Clinical Psychologist, Ph.D., University of Iowa, Senior Medical Research Scientist, Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, Associate Professor in Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania; Dr. Stanley Abrams, psychologist and medical doctor known for his work with the Kaiser Foundation, his research in polygraphy and his book, The Legal Basis of Polygraphy, have made the assessment what it is today.

Created in 1967, the published assessment was first utilized in conjunction with other known tests. Dr. Moore then began compilation of data to initiate the assessments' construct validation. The assessment was updated and revalidated in 1972 and again in 1994.

Neither the EEOC, the Department of Labor or any other government agency has the right to approve any test or employment procedure. The extent of their authority is to audit or investigate unacceptable procedures that have resulted in discrimination.

On numerous occasions, the FDIC has audited banks that use the Achiever assessment system. In each case, the system has always passed. The same is true with the OFCC audits of federal contractor clients. The Dallas district office of the EEOC and other EEOC offices across the country are acquainted with Achievement Tec's assessment systems. There has never been an adverse finding or out of court settlement against any employer for using the Achiever system.f

The Achiever was reviewed by Mr. Charles E. Duffy, District Director of the US Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Cleveland, Ohio. He commented that there is no need to have the Achiever validated within each company since there is only a slight possibility of any adverse effect on a protected group, particularly since there are no passing or failing scores yielded by the Achiever. Nevertheless, the Achiever is validated through the construct validation process and concurrent validations are continuously in progress on an ongoing basis.

Utilizing the Achiever properly ensures protection against EEOC problems and adverse impact. When the Achiever is properly implemented and utilized in conjunction with other standard hiring and interviewing procedures, it strengthens the employers' position of taking affirmative action to ensure that applicants and employees are treated fairly without regard to race, color, age, religion, sex or national origin.

Not responsible for errors or omissions. Specifications subject to change without notice.

Validity

Validation is a process of accumulating evidence to provide a scientifically sound argument to support the intended interpretation of test scores.

The Achiever has been established and validated in accordance with the procedures described in "Standards of Educational Psychological Tests and Manuals," which is referred to in paragraph: (2) 1607.6, "Minimum Standards for Evaluation," Federal Register Volume 35, dated Saturday, August 1, 1970. It is therefore not discriminatory and is in compliance with EEOC and other Federal Regulations.

The Reliability and Validity Manual establishes the legal and written confirmation that this evaluation was professionally developed and validated in accordance with both Construct and Criterion methods of validation. There are four forms of validity:

Construct Validation refers to the extent to which dimensions with similar names on different tests relate to one another. Two things that correlate highly are not necessarily identical, but do provide reassurance that they are related and are a "construct" or part of the makeup (such as honesty, dependability, sociability, etc.) of an individual as related to actual job performance.

Concurrent Validation is that approach whereby people who are successful at a particular job within a given company or industry are evaluated and generally grouped top third, middle third and bottom third. The assessment scores of the people who fit each of these ranges are then compiled and Job Benchmark Standards of the top third are used to hire, train or manage.

Predictive Validation occurs when the employer hires people for a job based on normal hiring procedures (interviewing, reference checks, education/experience, etc.) and has them complete the assessment, but does not utilize any data from it in the hiring decision. After an appropriate amount of time, the assessments are scored. The results from the assessments are compared to those individuals who are still with the company and considered successful in their jobs. Based on the outcome of this comparison, a benchmark for the job is established.

Content Validation refers to job function testing, e.g., typing, mathematics, design, CPA exams, physical work endurance, etc. Content validation is not the method utilized by Achievement Tec, since we do not provide content assessments to the marketplace.

Achievement Tec recommends that an organization establish and utilize a consistent standard process when making hiring decisions. Information should be gathered in each step of the standard hiring process to have specific and measurable data to utilize in making a final hiring decision. The assessment should account no more than one-third of the hiring decision. The preliminary interview, job history check, in-depth interview results and evaluation of education, experience and other pertinent background factors should be considered as well.

Under the Uniform Federal Guidelines adopted in the 1970's, validation of any part of the hiring process (assessments included) was no longer deemed necessary unless a company was not meeting the 4/5th Rule in either hiring or promotional practices. Consequently, there are three optional approaches to using assessments:

• Establish your own successful employee Job Benchmark Standards by conducting a concurrent validation by job classification. By tying job-related criteria to the aptitudes and personality dimensions of the assessment, the ultimate in validation and job relativity is assured. In addition, the Job Benchmark Standards simplify the interpretation and use of the assessment in the hiring process, since it establishes a model for hiring, promotion and training purposes.

• Establish Job Benchmark Standards by job classification by answering job-related questions on the requirements of the job. The assessment software will then develop Job Benchmark Standards based on the requirements of the job and traits required in the individual to successfully perform the job.

• Use of Job Benchmark Standards comprised of successful people in jobs across the United States. Then, after a reasonable period of time, compare the successful people selected to the Benchmark Standards used for that job for confirmation of correctness and/or modification of the benchmark standards.

The in-depth validation identified above is not necessary if you are in compliance with the 4/5th Rule described below. This rule was designated by the EEOC as a computation tool to establish a basis to show whether or not a company is having an adverse impact in their hiring practices.

This hiring pattern results in adverse selection of minorities, since 1/2 as many minorities are hired as whites (or 30/60), whereas the hiring ratio must equal 4/5th as many minorities as whites.

Not responsible for errors or omissions. Specifications subject to change without notice.