Friday Nov 20 at 8:40am
My opinions on assessment have always been to treat them as if they are a necessary evil. In my current job, I assess children diagnosed with autism with standardized assessments that are designed to evaluate their skillset and determine a course of treatment. For the most part, the assessments are valuable in that they provide a record for progress from one assessment to the other, and occasionally they are helpful in predicting a course of treatment goals, but they are not an ideal tool for effective treatment. There is nothing more valuable than the opportunity to sit, listen, and observe an individual when it is my job to understand their skill set and help them develop to their fullest potential. Even beyond observation, the opportunity to play with a child helps me to assess their skills way more than the standardized assessment would direct.
Often, I even feel that the assessment is prohibitive to my work and creates problems rather than solving them. One of these problems is that the assessments that we complete are naturally social-based; the individual must interact with the evaluator. For individuals with autism, who already have a social impairment, the results of the test are automatically skewed because of the assessment delivery method. Other factors that affect the results of the assessment include the child’s comfort, their relationship with the evaluator, the presence or absence of problem behavior, among other things. At the end of the assessment, I am almost never sure that I have assessed fairly or completely, and yet, I continue to use assessment for a variety of contingencies that support assessments.
With that framework. I have a very similar feeling about assessment in the workplace. They are a necessary part of effective HR management and can be beneficial in some ways particularly in large corporations with a need to move through volumes of candidates and successions, but I view them as more beneficial as a refining tool, rather than a selection tool. For example, I would rather employ assessment in the final stages of candidate selection to choose between the best of the best who have been evaluated by other means prior or as growth and development tools to direct training for current employees.
Based on my experience with assessment in autism, I am more inclined to want to learn more about game-based assessments, rather than standardized assessments. Game-based assessments are shown to be more naturalistic and take advantage of harnessing the technological skill set that is necessary for business success in any current environment (Bhatia & Ryan, 2018).
References:
Bhatia, S., & Ryan, A. M. (2018).Hiring for the win: Game-based assessment in employee selection.
In J. H. Dulebohn & D. L. Stone (Eds.) Research in human resource management. The brave new world of eHRM 2.0(p. 81–110). IAP Information Age Publishing.
Saturday Nov 21 at 1:03am
Good Morning Dr. Shoemaker and Course Members
I hope as we enter this last discussion forum, that you all continue to stay safe and healthy, and I hope to see some course members in our future courses. My personal perspective regarding assessments when utilized to inform decision making in the workplace go as follow: In the case of questioning of determining which applicant to hire, which guide to utilize, or what business plan to carry out, having the capacity to make the best decision is vital for any company/organization. The best way to make an unsurpassable informed decision is to follow a procedure that ensures he/she is considering all applicable information and regarding the most possible outcomes. In my opinion, the best steps to follow will be explaining the opportunity, or challenge. Generate an arrangement of responses or probable solutions. Assess the price and advantages correlated with each option. Next, choose a response or solution. Apply the option select. Lastly, evaluate the effect of the decision and adjust a course of action as is necessary. I agree with my course members, assessment is a necessary evil (Bowers, 2020, para. 1).
Because pre-employment tests can have an enormous impact for better or worse on a person's life I feel applications that seem fair are aptitude assessments, which observe how well an applicant may develop in his/her new position by measuring how quickly he/she pick up new skills. Also, achievement assessments evaluate skills in particular areas. I also believe some personality assessments seem fair which observes how good an individual fits in and what dimensions he/she is able to compromise, resolve problems, and work as a part of a team. However, a number of ethical issues can come up when creating, executing, and making decisions on some assessments.
According to Psychometrics Canada (2006), which creates assessment instruments for organizations, personality assessments can measure up to thirty different types of personality characteristics. Most generally, though, they observe traits such as workstyle, collaboration, ambition, teamwork, and leadership, ability to adapt, and flexibility, emotional resilience, stress tolerance, analytical thinking, and problem-solving. Questions that examine aptitude, personality, and adaptability to alter can often take on or seem to take on, a personal attack that may be discriminatory.
For example, the U.S. has court cases where candidates have brought potential employers to court for asking for personal information that is then utilized to exclude applicants. Likewise, the Ontario Human Rights Code (n.d.) describes that psychometric, or personality assessments including psychological assessments, should not be completed until the candidate has been given a conditional offer of employment. Although, the Ontario Human Rights Code (n.d.) says it can be awkward in that behavioral profiles can discriminate if the assessment classifies or identifies a candidate on values, religious beliefs, attitudes, and personal interests. In the U.S.-based Society for Human Resource Management, the justification for assessment instruments is to assist the organization in foretelling how well a person will perform on the job. The Society for Human Resource Management also draws attention that recruiting the wrong people may be costly, and selection mistakes can have a bad effect on employee management time, morale, development dollars including wasting precious training, and decrease worker productivity and the organization's profitability. I believe before beginning into testing mode, one should take the time to make sure he/she know exactly what type of worker is necessary for the open position, and then the assessment instrument may work in his/her favor.
References
Ontario Human Rights Commission. (n.d.) 6. Requesting job-related sensitive information. Available at
https://ohrc.on.ca(Links to an external site.)
Psychometrics. (2006). Using personality assessments to hire employees.
Psychometrics Canada Ltd.
Available at https:/psychchometrics.com