| Executive Summary |
The purpose of the study was two gain some exposure of the measurement used during staffing process around the globe. The first part of the paper covered several aspect of measurement in staffing that includes defining staffing measurement, general procedure of measurement, importance and use of measurement, characteristic of measurement that include standardization, scores, co-relation between score etc. Also some critical issues were discussed in this section, for example reliability of measure, validity of measures, validation measures in staffing, validity generalization. Then different types of staffing measurement test were listed for understanding.
Although, with the analysis a fairly vivid picture of the person were drawn, in conclusion several questions were raised regarding the personality inventories that characterize the complexity of the process. They are: a) are the responses of the individuals honest or true? b) does the individual understand the questions? c) how can such inventories be interpreted when actually there is no ideal type of behaviour? d)how has the inventory been validated and what is its reliability?
Measurement and Staffing
Measurement may be defined as the process of assigning number to object to represent quantities of an attribute of the objects.
In staffing, measurement is a process used to gather and express information about persons and jobs in numerical form. A common example in which management employs measurement is administer a test to job applicants and evaluate their responses to determine a test score for each of them.
Staffing organization is highly dependent on the availability and use of measures. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to have any type of systematic staffing process that does not use measures and an accompanying measurement process.
Procedure
Measures are methods or techniques for describing and assessing attributes of objects that are of concern to us. Examples include tests of applicant KSAOs, evaluations of employees’ job performance and rating of their performance for various types of job rewards.
These assessments of attributes are gathered through the measurement process. That process consists of:
a. Choosing an attribute of concern
b. Developing an operational definition of the attribute
c. Constructing a measure of the attribute (if no suitable measure is available) and
d. Using the measure to actually gauge the attribute
Result of the measurement process are expressed as number of scores for example, applicant’s scores on an ability test, employees performance evaluation rating scores, or applicants rating rewards in terms of their importance. These scores become the indicators of the attribute. Through the measurement process, the initial attribute and its operational definition have been transformed in a numerical expression of the attribute.
Importance and Use of Measures
Measurements are one of the key ingredients for and tools of, staffing organizations. A general illustration of this is shown next through a discussion of the major specific uses of measurement: measuring jobs, measuring individuals, measuring HR outcomes, monitoring and record keeping, and research and evaluation.
Measuring Jobs: Through job analysis, job requirements become specified in terms of tasks and the KSAOs thought to be necessary for the performance of those tasks. Throughout the job analysis process, measurement processes are used.
In the person-job matching model, jobs are said to have both requirements and rewards associated with them. These requirements and rewards need to be identified, defined and measured to make the matching concept come to life for staffing purposes. This occurs through the process of jobs analysis.
Measuring Individuals: People process a vast number of KSAOs. Some of these KSAOs will be of particular importance to the organization because they match identified requirements of jobs. Selecting individuals who possess these KSAOs requirements as employees is greatly facilitated by having and using measures of individual applicant’s job relevant KSAOs.
Measuring Outcomes: Outcomes of the persons-job matching process include factor such as job performance and retention. To determine and track the levels being attained on these outcomes, measures of them must be developed and used. In staffing, these outcome measures are referred to as criterion measures.
Monitoring and Record Keeping: Monitoring and record keeping are (or should) an integral part of any staffing system. Through these activates, the organization gathers and records numerical information that may be used for numerous staffing related purposes. These purposes include determining how well staffing activates conformed to staffing policies and procedures, numerical tracking how applicant pools are reduced as applicants proceed through the staffing process (so called applicant flow statistics) and determining compliance with legal requirements.
Research and Evaluation: The maintenance and availability of staffing data lead natural into more formal staffing research and evaluation activities. Such activities are primarily concerned with rigorously determining the effectiveness of specific staffing activities as well as the overall effectiveness of the staffing system.
Characteristics of Measurement
A standardized measure has three basic properties:
- The content is identical for all objects measured (e.g., all job applicants take the same test).
- The administration of the measure is identical for all objects (e.g., all job applicants have the same time limit on the test).
- The rules for assigning numbers are clearly specified and agreed on in advance (e.g., a scoring key for the test is developed before it is administered).
Level of Measurement
There are varying degrees of precision in measuring attributes and in representing differences among objects in terms of attributes.
Nominal: With nominal scales, a given attribute is categorized, and numbers are assigned to the categories. With of without numbers, however, there is no order or level implied among the categories.
Ordinal: With ordinal scales, objects are rank-ordered according to how much of the attribute they possess. Thus, objects may be ranked from best to worst or from highest to lowest. For example, five job candidates, each of whom has been evaluated in terms of overall qualifications for the job, might be rank-ordered from 1 to 5, or highest to lowest, according to their job qualifications.
Interval: Like ordinal scales, interval scales allow us to rank order objects. However, the difference between adjacent points on the measurement scales is now equal in terms of the attribute. If an interval scale is used to rank order of the five job candidates, the differences in qualifications between those ranked 1 and 2 are equal to the differences between those ranked 4 and 5.
Ratio: Ratio scales are like interval scales in that there are equal differences between scales points for the attribute being measured. In addition, however, ratio scales have a logical or absolute true zero point. Because of this, how much of the attribute each object possesses can be stated in absolute terms.
Objective and Subjective Measures
With objective measures, the rules are predetermined and usually communicated and applied through some sort of scoring key or system. Most paper-and-pencil tests are considered objective. The scoring systems in subjective measures are more elusive and often involve a rate or judge who assigns the numbers. Many employment interviewers fall in this category, especially those with an idiosyncratic way of evaluating people’s responses, one that is not known or shared by other interviewers.
Scores
Measures yield number or scores to represent the amount of the attribute being assessed. Score thus are the numerical indicator of the attribute. Once scores have been derived, they can be manipulated in various ways to give them even greater meaning, and to help better describe characteristics of the objects being scored. Some method of scoring is given below:
Central Tendency and Variability: The indicators of central tendency are the mean, median, and mode. Since it was assumed that the data were interval-level data, it is permissible to compute all three indicators of central tendency. Had the data been ordinal, the mean should not be computed. For nominal data, only the mode would be appropriate.
Percentiles: A percentile score for an individual is the percentage of people scoring below the individual in a distribution of scores.
Standard Scores: When interpreting scores, it is natural to compare individuals’ raw scores to the mean, that is, to ask whether scores are above, at, or below the mean. But a true understanding of how well an individual did relative to the mean takes into account the amount of variability in scores around the mean (the standard deviation).
Frequently, in staffing there are scores on two or more measures for a group of individuals. One common occurrence is to have scores on two (or often, more than two) KSAO measures. Investigation of the relationship between two sets of scores proceeds through the plotting of scatter diagrams and through calculation of the correlation coefficient.
Correlation Coefficient: The relationship between two sets of scores may also be investigated through calculation of the correlation coefficient. The correlation between two variables does not imply causation between them. A correlation simply says how two variables co-vary or co-relate; it says nothing about one variable necessarily causing the other one.
Quality of Measures – The Critical Issues
Reliability of Measures
Reliability of measurement refers to the consistency of measurement of an attribute. A measure is reliable to the extent that it provides a consistent set of scores to represent an attribute.
Measurement Error: The scores actually obtained from the measures have two components to them, a true score and measurement error. That is,
Actual Score = True score + Error.
Deficiency Error: Deficiency error occurs when there is failure to measure some portion of aspect of the attribute assessed. For example, if knowledge of mechanical principles involves gear ratios, among other things, and our test does not have any items (or an insufficient number of items) covering this aspect then the test in deficient.
Contamination Error: Contamination error represents the occurrence of unwanted or undesirable influence on the measure and on individuals for whom the measure is being used. These influences muddy the scores and make them difficult to interpret.
Validity of Measures
The validity of measure is defined as the degree to which it measures the attribute it is intended to measure, which involved the development of a test of knowledge of mechanical principles that was then to be used for purpose of selecting job applicants. The validity of the test is the degree to which it truly measures the attribute or construct “knowledge of mechanical principles”.
Accuracy of Measurement: Reliability refers to consistency among the scores on the test, as determined by comparing scores as previously described. Accuracy refers reliability, but it also requires more by way of evidence. For example, accuracy requires knowing something how the test was developed. Accuracy also requires some evidence concerning how test scores influenced by other factors – for example, how do test scores change a result of employees attending a training program devoted to providing instruction in mechanical principles? Accuracy thus demands greater evidence than reliability.
Accuracy of Prediction: Measures are often developed because they provide information about that people can be used to make predictions about those people. Knowing something about the accuracy with which a test predicts future job success requires examining the relationship between scores on the test and scores on some measure of job success for a group of people.
Validation Measures in Staffing
In staffing, there is concern with the validity of predictors in terms of both accuracy of measurement and accuracy of prediction. The validity of predictors is explored through the conduct of validation studies.
There are two types of validation studies typically conducted. The first of these is criterion-related validation, and the second is the content validation. A third type of validation study, known as construct validation, involves components of reliability, criterion-related validation, and content validation.
In the preceding discussion of validity and validation, an implicit premise is being made that validity is situation-specific, and therefore validation of predictors must occur in each specific situation. All of the examples involve specific types of measures, job, individuals, and so forth. Nothing is said about generalizing validity across those jobs and individuals. For example, if a predictor is valid of a particular job in organization A, would it be valid for the same type of job in organization B? Or is validity specific to the particular job and organization?
Evidence is beginning to surface that is supportive of the validity generalization premise. For example, evidences suggest that tests of general mental ability have meaningful, practical validity for predicting job performance across a wide variety of types of employees and jobs. Until more is know about validity generalization, however, caution is called for in its use in either scientific or practical term.
Types of Staffing Measurements
Measurements have been classified in many ways based on behaviour, purpose, content, form, procedure and function as well as in other ways. A brief description of some measurement classification are given below:
Personality Tests
- Minnesote Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
- Personal Characteristics Inventory (PCI)
- NEO Personality Inventory
- Hogam Personality Inventory (HPI)
- Miner Sentence Completion Scale
- Thomas Profile Analysis
Ability Tests
1. Cognitive Ability test
a. Employee Aptitude Survey
b. Wonderline Personnel Test
Psychomotor Ability Test
a. MacQuarrie Test for Mechanical Ability
2. Physical Ability Tests
3. Sensory/Perceptual Abilities Tests
a. Bennett Mechanical Comprehensive Test
b.
4. Computer Testing
a. QWIZ
Job Knowledge Tests
- Objective Inventory Questionnaire
Performance Tests and Work Sample
- Performance Test versus Work Sample
- Motor versus Verbal Work Samples
- High versus Low Fidelity Tests
- Computer Interaction Performance
Integrity Tests
- American Psychological Association (APA) Tests
- Interests, Values, and Preference Inventories
- Strong Vocational Interest Bank (SVIB)
- Myers Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI)
- Organizational Culture Profile (OCP)
Structured Interview
- Patterned Behaviour Description Interview
- Structured Stress Interview
Drug Testing
- Body Fluids
- Hair Analysis
- Pupillary reaction Test
- Performance Tests
- Personal Integrity Test
Introduction to Thomas Profile Analysis System
The Personal Profile Analysis represents a breakthrough in the analysis of a person’s ability to handle a job.
In 1982 Dr. William Marston set forth the theory that human behavior was a function of the environment of that individual. This was described on a scale from antagonistic to favorable reaction within this environment, with the person’s reaction measured along a basis of active to passive. Using these two limits as a base line, four typical patterns of interaction of the individual and his environment could be seen:
1. Dominance - an active, positive posture in an unfriendly environment.
2. Influence - an active, positive posture in a favorable environment.
3. Steadiness - passive agreeableness in a favorable environment.
4. Compliance - a cautious, undecided response to an antagonistic environment designed to calm the degree of antagonism.
Dr. Marston postulated that most people will show all four of these dimension at times. However, an individual will generally display one or more of these basic characteristics consistently in the working environment, because each person develops a styles of life for himself/herself, which pleases particular emphasis on certain postures and less emphasis on others.
The personal profile analysis forces the persons being evaluated to select the words, which most and least describe him/her. By charting these choices scientifically, the system allows a trained analyst to obtain an insight in to how these persons will behave in the work situation. Read together with data about the person’s previous work experience, qualifications, training and ability, it can provides helpful understanding as to how this person copes with his/her environment and what his/her present attitudes are likely to be. It also provides insight into possible performance in a particular function. Because it is an instrument gathering self-report data, it is positive in nature and, on the whole, the resulting analysis is acceptable to the individual concerned.
The personal profile analysis is not a clinical instrument. It is not intended for the diagnosis of abnormal behaviour.
Procedure
To study the personal profile of an individual with Dr. Marston’s Personal Profile Analysis System, the following steps are followed:
- Selection of a subject (person)
- The subject is given a forced choice questionnaire (Annexure - A) and allowed 10 minutes to complete
- Results are complied in a colour coded score sheet (Annexure - B)
- Numeric values are plotted in a graph (Annexure - C) to get three different profile –
a) How others see the person
b) The persons behaviour under pressure
c) How the person sees him or herself
- Graphs are analysed on the basis of instructions given in Annexure – D to get the profile inventory of the person.
Subject (Person) of Study
The details of the subject is given below:
i. Age: 35 years
ii. Occupation: Private Service
iii. Present Position: Senior Manager (General Management)
iv. Education: MSc, MBA
v. Years of Service: 9 years
vi. Sex: Male
vii. Marital Status: Married with two children
Result of Analysis
From the graphs (shown in the page no 10) plotted on the basis of inputs collected through the questionnaire we found that the person is a high D and low I individual in all three graphs and hence the following profile can be drawn about the person:
| 1. Characteristics: i. Assertive ii. Competitive iii. Direct iv. Forceful v. Inquisitive vi. Self-starter vii. Aggressive | viii. Dominating ix. Probing x. Reflective xi. Reserve xii. Self-conscious xiii. Serious xiv. Suspicious |
- Others Key Factors:
i. Management Style: Directive
ii. Motivators: Power and Tangible Goals
iii. Communication Style: Tells
iv. Fears: Failure
v. Questions: What
vi. Engages: Force of Character
- How The Person May Appear
i. Probably running late.
ii. Can be or appear to be rude and blunt.
iii. Office desk is probably disorganized
iv. Strong assertive handshake (grips)
v. Emphasis points through challenging
vi. Probably acts restless
vii. Could be critical and fault finding
viii. Very aggressive
ix. Tries to dominate
x. Forceful
4. Job Indicators:
| i. Solicitor | ii. Researcher | iii. Planning Consultant |
| iv. HR Management | v. Trouble Shooting | vi. Self-employment |
We found a fairly vivid picture of a person. But, it should be kept in mind that this is not a clinical instrument and this is not intended for diagnosis of abnormal behaviour. Following question characterize the complexity of using personally inventories:
- Does the individual understand the questions?
- How can such inventories be interpreted when actually there is no ideal type of behaviour?
- How has the inventory been validated and what is its reliability?
Certainly the question of faking and malingering is always present. The behaviour measured by personality inventories, as constructed to other kinds of tests, is more changing and fluid. This leads to complications in determining test reliability and validity. The search for adequate criterion data to establish validity is still present.
HOW THE PERSONALITIES MAY APPEAR
| HIGH ‘D’ - Probably running late. - Can be or appear to be rude and blunt. - Office desk is probably disorganized - Strong assertive handshake (grips) - Emphasis points through challenging - Act restless - Could be critical and fault finding - Very aggressive - Tries to dominate - Forceful | HIGH ‘I’ - There may be certificates, pictures trophies clipping in the room - Agreeing to most of the suggestions. - Many times dressed in latest fashion. - Much hand body movement. - Tells stories and anecdotes. - Firm handshake (pumps) - Very communicative |
| HIGH ‘C’ - Office is neat and very orderly. - Everything will appear organized. - Will be prepared for your visit. - Will be on time. - Acts as per the book. - Avoids controversy. - Places logic - May appear expressionless. - Stresses on writing. | HIGH ‘S’ - The picture in the office will be passions and family. - Will probably have a name-plate on the desk/door. - Organized desk. - Loose, friendly handshake - Very security conscious. - Through and details. - Ask question for clarity. - Make tentative statements. - Slow but firm voice. - Listen, may not talk lot. |
| HIGH -D | HIGH- I | HIGH-S | HIGH -C |
| | | | |
| * Assertive | * Communicative | * Amiable | * Accurate |
| * Competitive | * Friendly | * Deliberate | * Careful |
| * Direct | * Influential | * Dependable | * Compliant |
| * Forceful | * Persuasive | * Good Listener | * Logical |
| * Inquisitive | Positive | Kind | Perfectionist |
| Self- Starter | Verbal | Persistent | Precise |
| Aggressive | Affable | Accommodating | Systematic |
| Blunt | Charismatic | Easy-Going | Adaptable |
| Egocentric | Confident | Industrious | Cautious |
| Daring | Effusive | Lenient | Conservative |
| Decisive | Generous | Non- Demonstrative | Conventional |
| Demanding | Gregarious | Patient | Diplomatic |
| Dominating | Optimistic | Passive | Disciplined |
| Overbearing | Participative | Predictable | Evasive |
| Self- Assured | Poised | Relaxed | Open- Minded |
| Self- Indulgent | Promoter | Self- Controlled | Overly - Dependent |
| Venturesome | Self- Promoting | Serene | Rational |
| | Sympathetic | Soft- Tempered | Self- Effacing |
| | | Steady | Super-Sensitive |
| | | | Worrier |
| | | | |
| * Indecisive | * Probing | * Active | *Firm |
| *Mild | * Reflective | * Alert | *Independent |
| *Non-Demanding | * Reserved | * Demonstrative | * Persistent |
| * Cautious | * Self - Conscious | * Eager | * Strong- Willed |
| Conservative | * Serious | * | * Stubborn |
| Easily Intimidated | Suspicious | Restless | Careless |
| Fearful | Aloof | Anxious | Defiant |
| Hesitant | Factual | Discontented | Fearless |
| Humble | Irritable | Dynamic | Immovable |
| Meek | Logical | Energetic | Obstinate |
| Modest | Non- Communicative | Fault - Finding | Opinionated |
| Peaceful | Non- trusting | Fidget | Rebellious |
| Self- Sacrificing | Pessimistic | Impatient | Rigid |
| Timid | Quiet | Impetuous | Sarcastic |
| Unassuming | Retiring | Impulsive | Self- Righteous |
| Unobtrusive | Withdrawn | Opportunist | Tactless |
| Unpretentious | | Restive | Unconventional |
| | | Self- Critical | |
| | | Tense | |
| LOW-D | LOW- I | LOW -S | LOW -C |
Really a pretty thing you had said here. I think this will be useful at many people. SO please keep update like this.
ReplyDeleteStaffing Companies in Chennai