Re: Testing for (in)competence

Subject: Re: Testing for (in)competence
From: "Robert W. Jones" <shaka -at- NETCOM -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:13:52 -0800

Unless your test can pass muster with with legal and test experts, you
may be getting your company into tort city of legal suits now or
later. You test/case could pass muster with your legal and test experts and
still get a big kick in the pants in court if your company and or
department has a history of being bias against certain groups.

On Thu, 2 Mar 1995, Geoff Hart wrote:

> << Geoffrey Marnell <gmarnell -at- OZEMAIL -dot- COM -dot- AU>
> << Suppose that there is no accreditation process to help you select a
> << technical writer for a new project. Suppose, too, that you want to
> << create a simple test to help you select the best technical writer

> Geoff: (Nice name!)
> It's interesting to see debate on whether we should be tested for
> competence as part of the job interview process. Since I've never been
> interviewed without a test (always oral, usually written), I'm
> surprised to see that there's any debate on this at all! Nowadays,
> with dozens (if you're lucky) or hundreds of applicants for each good
> writing job, you've got to come up with some way of eliminating the
> "poseurs".
> Selecting a good writer isn't as hard as it sounds... or to be more
> precise, excluding the bad ones is easier than most of us think. Since
> you specified the context of an accounting manual, try this test: Ask
> the applicant to document how s/he fills in a deposit slip at the bank
> when the deposit comprises cash (rolled coins and bills), money
> orders, and cheques, and when there will be a cash withdrawl at the
> same time. In your instructions you should hint (but don't specify)
> that the depositor should also keep a record to update his/her
> bankbook, and if they do so (and add text on balancing the checkbook
> records) treat this as a bonus. Anyone who takes more than one page to
> document this procedure, or who can't do it _well_ in one page, should
> be excluded unless there is some justification for greater length
> (e.g., lavish illustration of the text with images of the deposit slip
> and detailed explanation of the fields, which would demonstrate the
> person is at least somewhat visually literate).
> Hope this helps!
> --Geoff Hart #8^{)} <--- attempt at visual literacy


Previous by Author: Re: Instructions to "Be Patient" from a Machine
Next by Author: Re: Testing for (in)competence
Previous by Thread: Testing for (in)competence
Next by Thread: Re: Testing for (in)competence


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads