Index of Articles for the Summer 2006:
• The Measure of…what?
• Relative Deprivation and the Need for Wellness Programs
• Cost of Accommodations: A 2006 Update
• For Attorneys Only: A Reference Book
• Massage or Yoga Anyone?
• Teen Job Hazards
• Online CEU Program Through CEC’s Web site
The Measure of…what?
by Jasen Walker, Ed.D., C.R.C., C.C.M.
Job performance questions became an issue for quarterback Vince Young, 2005 Heisman Trophy runner-up and most valuable player in the 2006 Rose Bowl. As part of the NFL Scouting Combine in February, Young and all other potential 2006 NFL Draft picks were tested with the Wonderlic Personnel Test. The Wonderlic is a 12-minute, 50-question standardized paper-and-pencil test purported to measure cognitive ability and, by extension, vocational potential. The average score for an NFL prospect is 19, and the average score for those tested in corporate America is 21. Following the Combine, it was reported that Young received a score of 6 on the Wonderlic, a potentially disastrous score that many “experts” felt would lower his position in the first round of the draft—or knock him out of the first round entirely. It was later reported that his low score was due to a scoring error, and he received a 16 after being given a chance to retake the test. Young eventually went on to be chosen as the 3rd overall pick in the 2006 NFL Draft, but of what relevance is his Wonderlic score to his capacity to function effectively as an NFL quarterback?
Psychometric assessment has a long history of controversy in terms of assigning numbers, such as test scores, to the attributes of persons in order to predict their achievement potentials in a variety of fields, including education, work, and now sports. Most psychological and vocational tests measure behaviors that may or may not be relevant to performance of a particular task or achievement in a specific walk of life. Among the multiple issues associated with relying upon psychometric instruments to predict outcomes such as job performance is the concept of ecological validity. Ecological validity can be defined as the functional and predictive relationship between the test-taker’s performance on a particular test and the test-taker’s behavior in a real-world setting, such as work.
The purpose of vocational or employment testing (apparently the purpose of Young and other potential NFL Draft picks taking the Wonderlic) is so those administering the instrument can make accurate predictions from test results to real world outcomes. The specific value will be in whether the test data predict the test-taker’s fitness and potential for success in a particular occupation. In the Young situation, it would seem quite a stretch to argue that his performance on the Wonderlic would be a reliable predictor of his success as an NFL quarterback. In fact, research has yielded empirical evidence that within the modern NFL Draft era there no statistically significant relationship exists between intelligence and quarterback performance at either the collegiate and/or professional level (Mirabile 2005). This finding, of course, does not even begin to address the underlying issue of whether the Wonderlic effectively measures intelligence!
Nonetheless, the use of quantitative measures of personal characteristics to predict an individual’s compatibility with or potential in a particular vocation has been controversial since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted to eradicate employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. The Wonderlic seems to have a history of misuse in determining appropriate employment for individuals administered the test.
Until 1965, when Title VII became effective, Duke Power Company had openly discriminated on the basis of race by only allowing African-Americans to work in the labor department, where workers were paid less than employees in other (i.e., Caucasian) departments. In response to Title VII, the company opened jobs in all departments to people of color, but required a high school diploma for employees transferring from labor jobs to other departments. However, it also required anyone newly employed in jobs outside the labor department to obtain satisfactory scores on two standardized measures: the Wonderlic and the Bennett Mechanical Aptitude Test. Willie Griggs, a Duke Power Company employee, filed a class action lawsuit against the company on behalf of several fellow African-American employees. On appeal, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Duke Power Company’s standardized testing requirement prevented a disproportionate number of African-American employees from being hired. The Supreme Court further ruled that the requirement prevented employees from advancing to higher-paying departments within the company.
The Supreme Court has interpreted section 703 (h) of Title VII as requiring employment tests to be job-related. In the landmark Griggs decision, the Supreme Court stated the following about testing under Title VII:
Nothing in the Act [Title VII] precludes the use of testing or measuring procedures; obviously they are useful. What Congress has forbidden is giving these devices and mechanisms controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance. Congress has not commanded that the less qualified be preferred over the better qualified simply because of minority origins. Far from disparaging job qualifications as such, Congress has made such qualifications the controlling factor, so that race, religion, nationality, and sex become irrelevant. What Congress has commanded is that any tests used must measure the person for the job and not the person in the abstract.
The argument here is not against the Wonderlic as a test of cognitive ability, but its application and, in fact, the potential for misuse of any professionally prepared test. The Supreme Court’s language speaks to the importance of considering ecological validity when choosing to administer standardized tests and when considering the test results as an important tool in employee selection. Essentially, ecological validity is the extent to which test findings can be generalized to the “real world,” or in occupational terms, the degree to which test findings can match a job description. Predictions of vocational functioning can be enhanced when properly trained evaluators or employers choose appropriate instruments to measure factors matching essential functions of particular jobs. Obviously, ecological validity was not a concern to those who administered the Wonderlic to Young and other potential NFL Draft picks.
Reference:
Mirabile, McDonald P. Intelligence and Football: Testing for Differentials in Collegiate Quarterback Passing Performance and NFL Compensation. The Sports Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, Spring 2005.
There is an important discussion going on in the country concerning how to measure poverty. Many government programs depend on the definition of poverty that has been adopted. Central to the issue is the distinction between “absolute deprivation” and “relative deprivation.”
One of the salient research studies on the subject of relative deprivation was conducted by Angus Deaton, Ph.D., a Princeton economist who is an expert on poverty. Dr. Deaton wrote:
“The degree to which lower rank is harmful to an individual is likely to depend on the number of people of higher rank, because each such person is in a position to deliver threats, insults, enforced obeisance, or ultimate violence that generates stress. Individuals who are insulted by those immediately above them insult those immediately below them, generating a cascade of threats and violence through which low-ranked individuals feel the burden, not just of their immediate superiors, but of the whole hierarchy above them.”
For the moment, epidemiological studies do not explain how “relative deprivation” damages people’s health—they simply suggest there is a connection.
What this means (in our opinion) in terms of disability management programming is that the single most important component of the program must be the wellness component. Employers who provide safety and wellness education to their employees will benefit from reductions in absenteeism and the overall cost for illness and injuries. And this is true regardless of the number of employees. Small companies stand to receive gains proportionate to the level of return received by large companies with many employees.
The idea of relative deprivation and absolute deprivation is a long-standing debate between conservatives and liberals. Our purpose here is not to endorse one side over the other. Our position is simply to emphasize the importance of planning, conducting, and sustaining wellness and safety programs for employees.
At CEC Associates we generally place our focus on the operational components of disability management programming, such as job analyses/job descriptions, transition-to-work, and case management. But the reality is that the single most important—the single most cost effective—component of the programming will always be the quality of the safety and wellness education provided.
Cost of Accommodations: A 2006 Update
A survey by the U.S. Department of Labor (Office of Disability Employment Policy) found that 50.5 percent of the respondent employers said they incurred no charge to comply with employee accommodation requests. Another 42 percent reported they were able to accommodate a disabled employee for a median one-time cost of $600.
The report, Workplace Accommodations: Low Cost, High Impact is available from the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) on their Web site: www.jan.edu/median. JAN is the official Department of Labor resource for accommodation and ergonomic solution to workplace needs.
The report summarized the value of accommodations with the finding that 76 percent of the employers surveyed said their use of accommodations were “extremely or very effective.”
Attorneys and other professionals working with vocational rehabilitation issues should take responsibility for informing the companies they work with about the on-going findings by the Department of Labor on the value of accommodations in retaining experienced employees.
What are the new developments in ADA and equal employment law? The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) announced the latest edition of their biennially updated book, Equal Employment Law Update: Fall 2005 Edition.
This edition contains appellate case analyses from September 2000 through September 2002 as well as analyses of all Supreme Court decisions through June 27, 2005.
The cost of the 2005 Edition is $225 plus tax and shipping/handling if your order by calling (800) 960-1220. However, you can receive a 10 percent discount by ordering from the BNA Web site: www.bnabooks.com.
Massage or Yoga Anyone?
A June 9, 2006, news release from Reuters reported that a number of companies are offering massage and yoga time at work. While these types of programs have been identified with aggressive (i.e., nontraditional) employers in the past, the basic point of the report is that the programs are becoming mainstream.
The idea of these “perks” is not only to make employees happier, but also to make them more competitive, thereby boosting the bottom line. The report also notes that employers are searching for new ways to keep employees because it is becoming harder to replace productive workers.
While the report does not identify a significant reduction in workplace illnesses/injuries as a side benefit of these programs, it is likely that regular massage and/or yoga sessions would accomplish just that.
While we have no statistics that tell us how many of the claimants we evaluate at CEC with workplace injuries are teenagers, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics recently published relevant statistics on this group. The report focused on non-fatal workplace illnesses or injuries in the year 2004 for workers age 16 to 19.
The jobs with the most illnesses/injuries were:
Freight/stock/material movers 4,920
Fast-food servers 2,310
Cashiers 1,630
Construction laborers 1,600
Retail salespersons 1,550
Perhaps the most interesting finding is that cashiers reported more workplace illnesses/injuries than construction laborers.
CEC’s online program to earn CEU’s for CRC, CCM, and CDMS certification is in its seventh year. To earn CEUs, individuals read articles created by CEC and answer 10 questions for each article.
There are a total of 30 articles that have been approved for different focus areas for each of the relevant commissions. The articles are currently divided into seven series and each series is worth 10 credit hours. In addition, 16 of these current credits have been approved as Ethics credits.
The convenience of the online program continues to attract more subscribers each year. A number of larger rehabilitation companies/entities have made special arrangements with CEC for discounts for their employees who participate.
For more information about how the online program works, call Dina at (800) 246-9767 or visit our Web site: www.cecassoc.com/CEU Credits .