(3) Personality traits.-Does the applicant possess those personal charecteristics which have a direct bearing on his success or failure on the job?

(4) Physical fitness. Is the applicant equipped physically to carry out the duties of the position?

(5) Suitability. Is the applicant a law abiding, honest and responsible citizen?

For any Federal position either aptitude or achievement must be measured; in addition, suitability and physical fitness must also be determined. However, in only a very few instances does the Civil Service Commission authorize the standard panel type interview to determine whether an applicant possesses personality traits which would result in failure on the job even though he possessed all other qualifications. The use of the standard interview is restricted to those "positions in which the ability to deal effectively with other people is essential—so essential, in fact, that lack of these qualities proposed to be tested should completely disqualify an applicant."

EXAMINING DEVICES AND EXTENT OF THEIR USE

Civil service examinations are frequently referred to as being of the assembled or unassembled type. This means, simply, that the candidates are rated according to scores achieved on a written or performance test (assembled) or they are given ratings based on a review of experience and training as set forth in the application form (unassembled). The terms assembled and unassembled refer to the requirement of assembling the candidates in person for a written or performance test as opposed to a review of the application which does not require the candidate's presence.

(1) Written test.-The written test which is generally used to measure achievement or aptitude has several distinct advantages. When there are a great number of applicants available for examination, the written test can be administered and mechanically scored in a relatively short period of time. The scores obtained on the written test may then be used to rank the eligibles. Written tests, however, are extremely expensive to construct. Test construction and validation require the services of highly qualified professional personnel. The economic advantages of a written test bear a direct relationship to the number of candidates tested. When that number is small the expense involved in test construction can seldom be justified.

(2) Performance test.-Another way that competitors for positions in the Federal service may be tested for their ability to perform a given job is through the performance test. This is the process of having the applicant do the actual work. An example of the performance type examination would be the testing of a welder by having him use a torch and do some welding. This is an extremely effective method of testing a person's skill in a given occupation. For such positions as typist or stenographer a performance test is an excellent examining tool. The number of occupations which lend themselves to this type of testing is, however, rather limited. Unfortunately, it is seldom possible to reproduce the job situation for test purposes.

(3) Rating of training and experience. In addition to written tests and performance tests there is a third method of examining applicants for Federal employment. This method commonly referred to as the

"unassembled" examination consists of assigning each applicant a rating based on a review of his training and experience as presented on his application, CSC Form 57. Since the law requires that eligible candidates be ranked in order, the review must determine not only the candidate's ability or inability to perform on the job but his relative ability with respect to all other eligibles. A certain minimum of experience and/or education is required for eligibility. Scoring above the passing mark of 70 given for this minimum is accomplished by supplying raters with rating schedules, or scales, which indicate kinds and quality of experience and the credit to be assigned for a given quantity and quality of experience or training. The rating scales are generally drawn up with the aid of operating officials and employees engaged in the occupations for which the scales are to be used.

Hence, the rater reviews the candidate's application form and matches the employment and scholastic record against the rating form and arrives at a score. To this score is added any preference points to which the candidate may be entitled. At present, this method accounts for the great bulk of Federal hires. In 1951, 80 percent of the 13,462 examinations announced carried no requirement for a written examination. Since this figure includes only those examinations which were formally announced (47 percent of Federal hiring in 1951 was without formal examination announcement) it does not take into account those persons who were hired under direct hiring authority.

There are several practical procedural advantages to the technique of ranking applicants based on a review of experience and training. This method does not require the candidates to appear in person for the examination. It avoids the expense involved in constructing and administering a written test when the number of applicants would make this economically impractical. In addition, when an occupation is in short supply workers may not be willing to appear and take a written examination.

This type of examination, however, does not have the objectivity which is inherent in the written test. The Civil Service Commission recognizes this. In a report to this subcommittee, the Commission states:

Unassembled ratings, as they depend on subjective judgments of the statements made in applications, do not usually obtain as high a degree of reliability; raters may differ in their evaluation of individuals. Although there is substantial agreement between trained raters, experience with the unassembled rating method shows that there is need to develop further techniques for appraising the quality of applicant's experience. The greatest reliability is attained when the rating of quantity rather than quality of experience is stressed.

While our study has not revealed any cases of deliberate falsification with respect to experience and training, we have been informed by persons engaged in personnel work that the ability to describe one's experience and training on CSC Form 57 in a manner which will impress the rater is frequently a critical factor in securing a Government job. This ability is, of course, not always related to a person's capacity to perform on the job. A man may be an excellent tradesman without being able to relate his experience and training in a manner that would gain him an outstanding rating on an unassembled examination.

31101-53--3

Recognizing that the law requires that candidates be ranked in order, the subcommittee, nonetheless, is convinced that the unassembled rating method is not a technique which can be sufficiently refined to assign a relative ranking to each of the many candidates examined. As presently used, this device does not serve true merit principles.

(4) Interviews.-The personal interview as an examining device is utilized to a very limited extent in Government hiring. The Civil Service Commission's attitude with respect to the interview is expressed in its regulations governing the use of its standard panel type, interview as quoted on page 60. Unless it can be established that personal traits constitute "make or break" job requirements, the Commission will not authorize the interview as an examining technique. The subcommittee recognizes the dangers inherent in the indiscriminate use of the interview. However, personnel and operating officials in Government service have urged a wider use of this examining tool.

Personality traits and related factors are extremely important in a great number of positions in the Federal service. While all these positions may not meet the Civil Service Commission's "make or break" test, the personal traits of the incumbent with relation to the job situation will frequently spell the difference between a first-rate performer, and an employee who is merely acceptable and one whose subsequent job performance proves he should not have been hired in the first place.

(5) Qualification inquiries.-Qualification inquiries are used to supply examiners with information which may not be available from a written examination or an application form. Qualification inquiries take two forms, the qualifications investigation and the qualifications questionnaire. The first is a personal investigation by a trained investigator aimed at checking the quality of an applicant's experience and training. This is, of course, an extremely costly method which is utilized only for the most important type of position. The qualifications questionnaire, or voucher, is a form requesting additional information. It is mailed to former employers and associates in an attempt to elicit job performance data which will aid the examiner in rating the applicant.

The examining methods described above are frequently used in combination to test for a given examination. A good example of combining several techniques in one examination is the junior management assistant examination. Applicants for this position must: (1) possess the required education and/or experience; (2) pass a written test; (3) pass an interview; and (4) have favorable answers received from a circulation of qualifications questionnaires. This type of examination is the exception rather than the rule. The object of this detailed search is the "bright young man" who can be trained for a top management job in the Federal service.

The shortcomings of our present examining system are illustrated by the fact that in fiscal year 1951 80 percent of the formal examinations announced were without benefit of a written test, performance test, or a test of personality traits essential to job success. Three of the five examining devices were not used.

THE USE OF QUALIFICATION STANDARDS AS PART OF THE EXAMINING PROCESS

A qualification standard might be defined as a statement of the qualifications required for entrance into the job. Before an examination of any kind can be devised it is necessary to determine the qualifications which candidates must possess to take on the job. Qualification standards, generally stated in terms of kinds and amounts of training and experience, physical requirements and age limits, are set by the Civil Service Commission in consultation with agency officials, agency personnel officers and operating personnel. According to the Civil Service Commission, every attempt is made to have persons who are familiar with the job in question participate in formulating the qualification standards.

Qualification standards are published in three ways:

(1) Probational examination specifications, consisting of a detailed statement of the standards which are used as a basis for constructing examinations and issuing examination announcements.

(2) Examination announcements, containing a statement of qualification standards suitable for public consumption.

(3) Civil service handbook X-118. This is a handbook published by the Civil Service Commission which contains abbreviated qualification standards for 800 classes of positions. Agency appointing offices use the standards in X-118 when hiring under direct hiring authority and effecting noncompetitive actions such as promotion, transfer and reassignment.

Since practically all Government hiring is based on qualification standards the importance of formulating standards which have the maximum correlation with job success is of the utmost importance.

Qualification standards the foundation of the examining program― must bear a direct relationship to job success or the balance of our examining program, no matter how carefully it is worked out, is doomed to failure.

As mentioned above, the Civil Service Commission in cooperation with agency officials promulgates standards. These standards are, however, seldom checked against performance on the job to determine their basic validity. While some type of validation study is done when any new written examination is issued, this is not the rule with qualification standards. This fact assumes significance when we recognize that today 80 to 90 percent of hiring is based on a rating of training and experience as stated in the candidate's application without written or performance test. The basis of this rating is found in the qualification standards for the job. If a candidate meets the standard he is given a grade of 70; the balance of his grade is determined by an evaluation of any additional experience he may possess. This evaluation can be meaningful only if the qualification standards which underlie the evaluation are sound.

Federal personnel officials in Washington and the field have expressed serious concern over the invalidity of the standards themselves, and the present means for preparing them.

While the Civil Service Commission in conjunction with the various agencies in the executive branch of the Government has devoted much time and energy to developing qualification standards it has failed to find an adequate substitute