Psychological Testing Article Analysis
The article, The Reemergence of Personality Testing as an Employee Selection Procedure, by Donald L Caruth and Gail D Caruth which was published in the magazine SuperVision, evaluates the relevance of personality testing in the workplace today (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). According to the article personality testing, once very popular, had been in a slump until recently (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The article displays how the popularity of personality testing had decreased and then reemerged as a useful tool in the employee selection process (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). This article also shows how effective the assessments can be and the legal aspects of them as well (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). This paper will analyze the article by summarizing the information presented within the article. This paper will also describe the types of psychological testing instruments that are central to the article and how they were utilized within the article. Finally, this paper will evaluate how effective the psychological assessment instruments used within the article could be. Article Summary
At one time personality testing in the workplace was a very common occurrence (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). After World War II and the Depression era, personality testing was used in many areas of the workforce from companies looking to hire people who were extroverted and could make good salesmen to the military trying to reintegrate soldiers into civilian life (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Personality testing in the workplace continued to gain in popularity and usage until a groundbreaking case in the 1970s in the Supreme Court, Griggs vs. Duke Power Company (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). This case sparked the dramatic decline in popularity of personality testing in the workplace. The case demonstrated an occurrence of personality testing being used to help a company discriminate in the workplace (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). In 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed which granted equal rights to everyone (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Duke Power Company began using personality tests as a pre-employment screening (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The personality tests were determined to be discriminatory in this situation. Personality tests are very useful tools in the employment process, but legally they must not be discriminatory (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The use of pre-employment testing must be equal and unbiased, not in intent but in effect, the results of the testing must be fair to all classes of people (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). The case determined that pre-employment psychological testing can only be used if they relate directly to the actual job performance or functions and the employer must prove that fact (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Fear of violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and being taken to court for discrimination caused many employers to stop using psychological testing at all. In 1975 the Supreme Court ruled that a test used in the employment process must be validated (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Essentially, during the 1970s, when the country was trying to move away from the discriminatory practices of the past, the Supreme Court was saying that if an employer was using a psychological test or any other pre-employment tool, the test must measure what it is intended to measure and may not discriminate in any way (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). Thanks to several cases in the Supreme Court, along with the Uniform Guidelines in Employee Selection Procedures in 1978, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, many practices changed by 1980 and personality tests were put on the shelf (Caruth, D & Caruth, G, 2009). According to the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, any psychological test used in the employee...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document