intuitive grasp on things. Feeling helpless he wonders: "Will the results of this psychological test haunt me for the rest of my working life?" How many times daily the curtain has lifted on this quiet, and sometimes not so quiet, office drama is anyone's guesstimate, since there are no U.S. statistics on it yet. What is known, however, is that the hotly debated use of psychological testing methods, from aptitude to personality tests, is "replacing baseball as the great American pastime," quips one humorist. Originally, psychological tests were used by managers as a tool for weeding out unqualified beginners. They are, of course, still greatly used for this. Now, however, especially since the addition of personality tests, management painfully uses them on experienced managers, which is, "hoist by its own philosophy." Apparently all this testing is no fad. Right now, interest is being shown in efforts to determine, biologically, how many useful years an applicant may have ahead of him. So, the scope of testing is due to broaden. Wryly comments William H. Whyte: "A dynamic would appear to be at work. The more people who are tested the more test results there are to correlate, and the more correlations, the surer are many testers of predicting success or failure, and thus the more reason there is for organizations to test more and more people.' To what extent is psychological testing used in the United States today? Most of the Nation's major corporations, as well as hundreds of smaller ones, will employ only applicants who have taken psychological tests. "Virtually every aspiring manager under the age of 30," comments one report, "has already gone through at least one testing of his personality at some stage during the past decade." In addition, many older managers and officers are now subject to testing when they're shooting for the high position. The testing of individuals for beginning jobs is generally accepted today, says the National Industrial Conference Board. The evaluation of managers and officers is less generally accepted. There are several reasons for this, comments the board. "The evaluation of executives is a fairly recent development compared with employment testing, which is well over a generation old. Selecting young workers for clerical or production jobs is relatively easy. Appraising older men for one-of-a-kind positions is more difficult. Many norms are available for starting jobs," says NICB, "but there are few useful norms for top positions." This is one reason why many firms have turned to using the outside psychological consultant. (Some 16 firms have even engaged the services of psychiatrists.) The psychological consultant usually charges $150 to $200 per "executive evaluation." This involves a full day of the individual's time. It means psychological testing (measures of reasoning, interests, and personality), an interview with the staff psychologist, and a discussion of the findings with the individual. Several reasons may be cited for the increasing use of psychological consultants, says NICB. An organization that has made a number of poor appointments, or one that has suffered high executive turnover may feel the need for outside help. Also, if the man under consideration is already with the company, management may say: "It's true we have known and worked with this man for 15 years, but this very fact suggests we are too close to him to see him fairly and objectively. "Furthermore, we have learned that a man who is effective at level B is not necessarily effective when moved in level A. Thus, we want a third-party view of our man (enter consultant) and a report on him in terms of the level A position for which we are considering him." Án executive evaluation is also supposed to assess the individual's strong, as well as weak points, and serve as a guide to his subsequent development. Testing is also used extensively in the electric utility industry (see table below). A recent study completed by John C. Arnell, director of personnel and industrial relations, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, uncovered the following data: Of 63 large and small electric companies in all sections of the country, 90 percent utilize tests during preemployment; 65 percent find them useful during selection for promotion; 54 percent use tests during selections for transfers. Aptitude, achievement, and personality tests, in that order, are the most popular, not only in the area of preemployment, but also for promotion and transfer. These are followed by interest and "combination" tests. Intelligence tests are utilized in all three selection areas but not to any great degree. What jobs are involved in the testing? "For hiring-in jobs, tests are utilized for all except, in a few cases, they are given only for clerical positions such as typist and stenographer. For transfers and promotions, some utilities stated that all jobs are involved, while others restrict tests to skilled or professional occupations such as engineers, programers, and system operators." Who administers the tests? This is in the hands of the personnel department in 63 percent of the areas. Sixteen companies (29 percent) indicated joint responsibility between personnel and the individual departments. Labor organizations are more apt to have specialists in their personnel departments to administer the testing programs. In this same light, two companies both relatively small as to the number of employees, says Arnell, hire the services of a consultant in one case to administer tests by himself, in the other to administer them in conjunction with personnel. What weight is given to these psychological tests? Tests are employed as a "supplement" to other selection factors, say 68 percent of the utilities. However, 15 companies (27 percent) replied that tests are predominant for some jobs but are used as a supplement to others. Remarks Arnell: 'Although those who reported using tests as a supplement are in the majority, quite a few *** report that test scores are the major factor in the selection process. They indicate generally that failure to receive a passing grade on preemployment tests automatically disqualifies the applicant ***" "I ask this group: What prompted you to adopt this policy? Was it an easy way out? Could you prove that it's related to the requirements either of the job or your employee training program? If you can't prove this, haven't you ulled yourself into a false sense of security? To be realistic about testing, shouldn't you know why and how you are using tests and what they prove?" This is one of the reasons why testing has been a controversial subject from the day they were first introduced into business-some companies use them with too much reverence, willing to believe too much about what tests can do for them. Individuals and companies have used tests improperly and have accepted test findings uncritically. Persons with inadequate training have been given responsibility for organizing testing programs. Test scores have been taken as final answers in making personnel decisions. Other reasons for the fight over psychological testing are the violent feelings that are aroused by the criticism that testing is an invasion of privacy and therefore an unfair-if not immoral-practice, and the disparity of opinions within the psychological profession itself on what constitutes ethical testing and how it should be employed. How should testing be employed? Psychological testing is not a scientific hiring method, says King Whitney, president, the Personnel Laboratory, Inc., Stamford, Conn. "The idea that test scores of themselves should determine who should be hired and who shouldn't is a rank absurdity. A man succeeds or fails on a job because of a host of factors and variables-only a certain number of which are revealed or measured by tests. "So, I do not advise anyone to begin making use of psychological testing as an aid to selection because he thinks that tests will make decisions for him. He is doomed to disappointment, since he will sooner or later find that in a number of instances, tests will only raise more questions about a person, muddying the waters and making decision making even more difficult. "There is only one reason for using any form of psychological testing in your hiring procedure and that is because you want more insight into the intellectual and/or emotional makeup of an individual than you are likely to derive from your interviewing or reference checking alone. In other words, you don't want to rely entirely on surface impressions in making a decision to hire or not to hire, to promote or not to promote.' What about weight? The weight given test results in making decisions to hire or promote people will vary considerably, says Whitney. "Just like the weight you give to their previous experience, education, or personal mannerisms. One good reason for avoiding assigning a rigid weight to test results is the disparity that sometimes occurs between an analysis of a person on the basis of his test performance and the evaluation made through interviews and references." What about the "invasion of privacy" howl that is being sent up over psychological testing? Management, the critics say, has no right to dig into and expose one's psyche. Aside from the fact that the howl may be sent up for the wrong reason, "testing does represent something of an invasion of privacy," says Whitney. "The real question is: Does management have the right to invade privacy? I believe management does have this right and should have as long as prospective and present employees represent an investment. But I also believe management's right in this regard should be restricted to obtaining information which has a bearing on how a man is likely to perform a job * * *" Removing the "cure-all" obsession from pyschological testing will not be an easy task. Its roots are buried deep in scientism. However, if it is not accomplished the practice of uncontrolled inquisitions into the psyche could spill over into U.S. life in general. Are the profits worth it? CONSIDERING A TESTING PROGRAM? EIGHT POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND 1. Tests aren't designed to give a complete picture of a person-only those areas which are difficult or impossible to discern from other methods, such as interviews and reference checks. So, don't look on tests as panacea. 2. Tests can measure some things better than others. For example, intelligence can be "measured" better than motivation. 3. Tests a company uses itself should be obtained only from reputable test publishers. Tailormade tests are preferable to canned ones. If in doubt, contact: American Psychological Association. 4. Tests can be administered by outside testing service. However, a company should make very sure the outside service understands demands of the company in general, and jobs for which they will be testing candidates in particular. 5. Tests must be given under proper conditions. This means surroundings should be quiet, well lighted and well ventilated. Time limits should be rigorously observed. 6. Test results for each person should be known to only a few top people in the company. The results should also be kept under lock and key. The information could be misused. 7. Tests are not infallible. If there's a disparity between test results and conclusions drawn from other evaluative techniques, don't assume tests are right. Dig deeper. More interviews, etc. 8. Test results should not be discussed with the person who took the test, unless there's certainty that the interviewer knows exactly how to handle it. If in doubt, get the aid of a qualified counselor. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL CHAPTER 335, SUBCHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5b Written test requirements: Promotion plans developed by agencies to cover position for which standards include a written test must include the written test requirement with the rating standards prescribed by the Commission. Agencies may also require written tests for promotion to other positions as a means of improving their promotion plans, or may add written tests in addition to those required by the Commission. CHAPTER 335, SUBCHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-4 Ranking promotion candidates The merit promotion program requires selection from among the best qualified candidates rather than selection of any qualified candidate. This requirement implies a ranking process more selective than the mere distinction between those eligible and those ineligible on the basis of the standards used. The term "ranking" may mean placing candidates in 1, 2, 3, order; or it may mean grouping them into two categories, qualified and well qualified; or into three categories, qualified, well qualified, and best qualified; or any other number of categories, depending on the number of candidates. Strict ranking order is not required within a category. Methods of ranking, referral, and selection should be designed Check reputation of these consultants with business and professional communities, with American Pyschological Association in Washington, D.C. Source: Personnel Laboratory Inc., National Industrial Conference Board. to make valid discriminations among candidates so as to bring a relatively small grouping of the best qualified candidates to the attention of the selecting official. Where the evaluation and ranking techniques bring a large number of candidates into the top group from which choice must be made, the situation should be reviewed to see if it is practicable to devise ranking methods that will make finer distinctions and relieve some of the selecting officer's burden. Conversely, ranking or grouping is of dubious value when there are only a few candidates (four or five, for example) since even the best selection techniques cannot make distinctions so exact that some final choice by the appointing officer is not desirable. Under the latter circumstances the evaluator can help the selecting officer by pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. Examining methods CHAPTER 337, SUBCHAPTER 1-4 The methods used to evaluate qualifications are designed to measure the knowledge, skills, and abilities considered essential to successful performance on the job. Written tests, performance tests, evaluation of experience, education and training, vouchers, interviews, qualification questionnaires and investigations and interest questionnaires may be used separately or in combination to determine eligiblity for particular jobs. The examining methods for particular positions are reflected in the standards. CHAPTER 337, SUBCHAPTER 3-3 A AND B Use of commercial testing material a. Optional use: An agency is not limited to the use of Commission tests in intraagency examinations and may obtain testing materials by other means, including buying them from commercial firms if this is permitted by the agency's budget and regulations. However, where the Commission specifies eligibility on a written test for qualification purposes, that test must be used. b. Selection of tests: (1) Commercial tests must, however, be used with extreme caution. * * *; (2) Unless several forms or series of a commercial test are available, there may be an additional question as to fairness since answer keys as well as tests are for sale. * * *; (3) Dependable selection of tests for a position requires first a job analysis which reveals the factors most needed for success on a job. Second, tests must be selected which validly and reliably test these factors. Third, the test or battery of tests must be so scored that proper weight is given to the various parts and thus to the factors being tested. *** Mr. GALLAGHER. The subcommittee stands adjourned until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., this same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. GALLAGHER. The subcommittee will be in order. Mr. Luce, can you pick up where you left off? Mr. LUCE. Mr. Chairman, I had completed a verbal summary of my written statement, and I am prepared to answer the committee's questions. Mr. GALLAGHER. Before we proceed, I would like Mr. Cornish to read into the record some of the questions from the tests which you give. Mr. LUCE. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, could he identify the test from which the questions are taken? Mr. CORNISH. Surely. I understand, Mr. Luce, you have a file of the questions? Mr. LUCE. No, sir; you have my file of questions. Oh excuse me, we have it back; yes. Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, has the witness identified what tests they give or what tests are given by their agency? Mr. LUCE. Yes; Mr. Congressman, we gave a complete list of the test and the text of the tests themselves. Mr. HORTON. I mean for the record. Mr. LUCE. Oh, no; I have not. I could offer the listing for the record, or handle it however the committee wishes. Mr. GALLAGHER. Fine. We would like to make this part of the record. (The following correspondence was subsequently submitted to the subcommittee:) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., May 28, 1965. Hon. CORNELIUS E. GALLAGHER, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. GALLAGHER: In your letter of May 12, 1965, you inquired concerning the use of written psychological questionnaires or personality tests on Government employees and applicants. One of the bureaus of this Department, the Bonneville Power Administration, has used psychological-personality tests. This bureau has had contracts with 2 independent consulting firms to evaluate a total of 105 employees for 29 positions. It is in the process of this employee evaluation that the tests were used. The Bonneville Power Administration has spent approximately $15,000 with Psychological Service of Pittsburgh and Psychological Services, Inc. ("Aptitude Testing for Industry"), of Los Angeles. The latter contract expired in February of this year. The tests used are limited in distribution by the publishers and are under the control of the two contractors. Hence, we are unable to furnish blank copies, as requested. The addresses of the two firms mentioned are: Pa. Psychological Service of Pittsburgh, Hardy and Hayes Boulevard, Pittsburgh, Psychological Services, Inc. ("Aptitude Testing for Industry"), 1800 Wilshire, Los Angeles, Calif. There is enclosed a statement prepared by the Administrator, Bonneville Power Administration, regarding the use of these tests. Sincerely yours, D. OTIS BEASLEY, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, Portland, Oreg., May 18, 1965. Memorandum. To: Secretary of the Interior. From: Bonneville Power Administrator. We are pleased to provide you with information regarding the use of phychological tests by the Bonneville Power Administration. In order to place this in proper context we would like to first describe BPA, then discuss the agency's testing programs. As you know, the Bonneville Power Administration was established by the Bonneville Project Act (50 Stat. 731) in 1937, to market power at wholesale from Bonneville Dam. Subsequent orders by Secretaries of the Interior extended BPA's marketing responsibility to include power from all Federal dams in the Columbia River Basin-21 existing and 6 under construction. BPA today is one of the largest electric utility operations in the United States, with 6.7 million kilowatts of installed peaking capacity and an additional 2.66 million kilowatts under construction. It has nearly 10,000 miles of high- and extra-high-voltage transmission lines which, with associated generating projects, represents a plant investment of more than $2 billion. Its program and its plant investment will more than double in the next 10 years. It markets roughly half 55-347-66- 13 |