Part 5 Predictors of Job Performance
CHAPTER
9
Application Forms and Biodata
Assessments, Training and
Experience Evaluations, and
Reference Checks
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Predictors of Job Performance Objectives
• Describe the appropriate information about
applicants that may be gathered by each type of
selection instrument.
• Point out the important measurement principles of
each type of instrument.
• Present specific points about the proper
development and use of each type of instrument.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–2
Application Forms
• Nature and Role of Application Forms
 A preemployment screen in the form of a series of
questions designed to provide information on the
general suitability of applicants for jobs to which they
are applying
• Purposes of Forms
 To decide if applicants meet the minimum
requirements of a position
 To assess and compare the relative strengths and
weaknesses of individuals making application
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–3
Using Application Forms in HR Selection
• Weighted Application Blank (WAB)
 An empirical scoring key is used to score
applicants on their answers on application form
 A research study is conducted on application
items, and responses are weighted so that they
predict some aspect or measure of job success
 Numerical scores are obtained for each applicant
by summing the appropriate weights
 Employers use the resulting scores in making
hiring decisions
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–4
Biographical Data
• What Are Biographical Data
 A broad spectrum of an individual’s background,
experiences, interests, attitudes, and values
• Types of Biodata Items
 Response-Type

The kind of response options (in the form of a scale) offered a
respondent by an item
 Behavior-Type

The specific behavioral content (dimension) of an item
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–5
TABLE 9.2
Classification of Example Biographical Data
Items by Response Type
1. Yes-No Response:
Are you satisfied with your life?
a. Yes
b. No
2. Continuum, Single-Choice Response:
About how many fiction books have you read in the past year?
a. None
b. 1 or 2
c. 3 or 4
d. 5 or 6
e. More than 6
3. Noncontinuum, Single-Choice Response:
Which one of the following would you most prefer to do in your
leisure time?
a. Read a book
b. Work crossword puzzles
c. Attend a party
d. Play golf, tennis, or softball
e. Repair a broken appliance or make minor home repairs
4. Noncontinuum, Multiple-Choice Response:
Check each of the following activities you had participated in by
the time you were 18.
a. Shot a rifle
b. Driven a car
c. Worked a full-time job
d. Traveled alone more than 500 miles from home
e. Repaired an electrical appliance
5. Continuum, Plus Escape Option:
When you were a teenager, how often did your father help
you with your schoolwork?
a. Very often
b. Often
c. Sometimes
d. Seldom
e. Never
f. Father was not at home
6. Noncontinuum, Plus Escape Option:
In what branch of the military did you serve?
a. Army
b. Air Force
c. Navy
d. Marines
e. Never served in the military
7. Common Stem, Multiple Continuum:
In the last 5 years, how much have you enjoyed each of
the following? (Use the rating scale of 1 to 4 shown below.)
a. Reading books
b. Watching TV
c. Working at your job
d. Traveling
e. Outdoor recreation
(1) Very Much
(2) Some
(3) Very little
(4) Not at all
SOURCE: Based on William A. Owens, “Background Data,” in Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, ed. Marvin Dunnette (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976), 613.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–6
TABLE 9.3
Classification of Example Biographical Data
Items by Behavioral Content
1. Verifiable:
Did you graduate from college?
2. Historical:
How many jobs have you held in the past five
years?
3. Actual Behavior:
Have you ever repaired a broken radio?
4. Memory:
How would you describe your life at home while
growing up?
5. Factual:
How many hours do you spend at work in a
typical week?
6. Specific:
While growing up, did you collect coins?
7. Response:
Which of the following hobbies do you enjoy?
8. External Event:
When you were a teenager, how much time did
your father spend with you?
Unverifiable:
How much did you enjoy high school?
Futuristic:
What job would you like to hold five years from now?
Hypothetical Behavior:
If you had your choice, what job would you like to hold
now?
Conjecture:
If you were to go through college again, what would
you choose as a major?
Interpretive:
If you could choose your supervisor, what characteristic
would you want him or her to have?
General:
While growing up, what activities did you enjoy most?
Response Tendency:
When you have a problem at work, to whom do you
turn for assistance?
Internal Event:
Which best describes the feelings you had when you
last worked with a computer?
SOURCE: Based on James J. Asher, “The Biographical Item: Can It Be Improved?” Personnel Psychology 25 (1972): 252;
and Wayne F. Cascio, Applied Psychology in Personnel Management (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1991), 266.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–7
Advantages of Biodata
• Collects information usually obtained in the
selection interview—consistently and empirically
• Makes understandable the effective employee;
doesn’t make a prediction of employee success, as a
WAB does
• Applying empirical scoring procedures ensures that
only job-related questions are posed.
• Has generally been shown to be as good a selection
measure as other methods
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–8
TABLE 9.4
Summary of Biographical Data Validation Studies
for a Variety of Criteria
NOTE: N.A. Data were not available.
aMarvin D. Dunnette, Validity Study Results for Jobs Relevant to the Petroleum Refining Industry (Washington DC: American Petroleum Institute, 1972). The
data reported in the table were taken from John E. Hunter and Rhoda F. Hunter, “Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance,”
Psychological Bulletin 96 (1984): 83.
bJohn E. Hunter and Rhonda F. Hunter, “Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance,” Psychological Bulletin 96 (1984): 72–98.
cRichard R. Reilly and Georgia T. Chao, “Validity and Fairness of Some Alternative Employee Selection Procedures,” Personnel Psychology 35 (1982): 1–62.
dNeal Schmitt, Richard Z. Gooding, Raymond A. Noe, and Michael Kirsch, “Metaanalyses of Validity Studies Published between 1964 and 1982 and the
Investigations of Study Characteristics,” Personnel Psychology 37 (1984): 407–422.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–9
Accuracy of Application Form Data
• Typical Falsifications
 Inflation of college grades
 Types of jobs held
 Past salaries received
 Past employers
 Educational degrees earned
 Gaps in employment histories
• Items Less Likely to Be Distorted
 Historical
 Objective
 Verifiable
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–10
Accuracy of Application Form Data
(cont’d)
• Enhancing Application Form Accuracy
 Inform applicants in verbally and in writing, that the
information they furnish will affect their employability
 Inform applicants that the data they provide will be
thoroughly checked
 Require applicants to sign a statement certifying the
accuracy of the information they provided on the form.
 Include warnings of penalties (not being hired or
termination upon discovery) for deliberate falsification
 Include a statement that the application does not
create a binding obligation of employment for any
specific period of time
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–11
Legal Implications of Application Forms
• EEOC Preemployment Guidelines
 Applications should not include questions that:



Disproportionately screen out minority group members or
members of one sex
Do not predict successful performance on the job
Cannot be justified as a business necessity
• Adverse Impact Questions
 Questions protected classes may answer differently
• Disparate Treatment Questions
 Different questions are asked to different groups
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–12
TABLE 9.5
Questions to Be Asked in Examining
Appropriateness of Application Form Questions
Note: The burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate that the information provided by the
application questions is not used in a discriminatory manner prohibited by law. Additionally,
extraneous information provided by applicants can be used by rejected applicants to argue
that they were turned down for an unlawful reason.
SOURCE: Questions 1 and 2 are based on Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Guide to Pre-Employment Inquiries (Washington, DC:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, August 1981); questions 3 through 5 are based on Ernest C. Miller, “An EEO Examination of Employment
Applications,” Personnel Administrator 25 (March 1981): 68–69.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–13
Legal Issues
• Adverse Impact
 Questions answered differently by protected classes
• Disparate Treatment
 Different questions asked to different groups
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–14
Composition of Application Forms
• Instructions for Applicants Should
 Tell applicants how to complete the necessary forms
 Be clear and understandable by all applicants
 Inform disabled applicants to request reasonable
accommodation in completing the application
 State that the application form has been reviewed to
ensure it is job-related and fair
 State who will see the information or how applicant
responses will be used to arrive at a decision
• Questions for Applicants Should
 Only ask job-related questions, and avoid those
relating to personal information
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–15
Developing and Revising Application Forms
• Because jobs are different, more than one
application form will probably be needed
• Job analysis data should serve as one basis for
choosing employment application questions
• Every item proposed for inclusion should be
reviewed using the item rating criteria listed in
Table 9.1
• Some jobs or classes of jobs may not require an
in-depth applicant assessment by means of the
application form.
• The physical layout and format of the form should
be thoroughly considered.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–16
TABLE 9.6
Examples of Appropriate and Inappropriate
Questions Asked on Application Forms
SOURCE: Based on Craig Wallace and Stephen J. Vodanovich, “Personnel Application Blanks: Persistence and Knowledge of Legally Inadvisable Application Blank Items,”
Public Personnel Management 33 (Fall 2004): 331–349; J. Craig Wallace, Mary G. Tye, and Stephen J. Vodanovich, “Applying for Jobs Online: Examining the Legality of
Internet-Based Application Forms,” Public Personnel Management 4 (Winter 2000): 497–504; Stephen J. Vodanovich and Rosemary H. Lowe, “They Ought to Know Better:
The Incidence and Correlates of Inappropriate Application Blank Inquiries,” Public Personnel Management 21(1992): 363–370; Herbert G. Heneman and Timothy A. Judge,
Staffing Organizations, 5th ed. (Mendota House, Middleton WI, 2006); Bureau of National Affairs, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guide to Pre-Employment
Inquiries (Washington, DC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—periodically updated), pp. 65–80; and Bureau of National Affairs, BNA Handbook: Personnel
Management (Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs, 2003).
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–17
Biodata Item-Writing Guidelines
• Biodata items should deal with past behavior and
experiences.
• Items dealing with family relationships or other
issues of a personal nature (e.g., religion) are
usually viewed as offensive.
• Specificity and brevity of items and response
options are desirable.
• Use numbers to define a biodata item’s options or
alternatives.
• All possible response options or an “escape” option
should be given; and, where possible, response
options should form a continuum.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–18
Biodata Item-Writing Guidelines
(cont’d)
• Item options should carry a neutral or pleasant
connotation.
• Items dealing with past and present behaviors and
with opinions, attitudes, and values are generally
acceptable.
• Items should reflect historical events that are
important in shaping a person’s behavior and
identity.
• To reduce socially desirable responses (i.e., faking),
biodata items should reflect external events, limited
to firsthand recollections, be potentially verifiable,
and measure unique, discrete events.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–19
Biodata Item-Writing Guidelines
(cont’d)
• Eliminate an item from the biodata inventory if the
item:
 Exhibits little response variance
 Has a skewed response distribution
 Is correlated with protected-group characteristics
such as ethnicity
 Has no correlation with other items thought to be
measuring the same life history construct
 Has no correlation with the criterion (no item validity)
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–20
Applications and Résumés
• Indicators of Résumé Fraud
 Inflated educational credentials (grades achieved,
degrees attained)
 Omitted, inconsistent periods of employment,
stretched employment dates, and gaps in time
periods listed
 Exaggerated claims of expertise and experience
 Claimed self-employment or work as a consultant
 Claimed work with firms now out of business
 Evidence of a regressive work history
 Use of qualifiers and vague answers
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–21
TABLE 9.7
Résumé Items Used
by Recruiters to
Infer Job Applicant
Abilities and Skills
for Sales and
Accounting Positions
NOTE: Definitions of job applicant
abilities and skills: Language ability—
capacity to read, write, and speak;
Math ability—capacity to perform
mathematical manipulations (addition,
subtraction, statistics); Physical
abilities—physical strength and
fitness; Interpersonal skills—capacity
to interact with and relate to others;
Leadership ability—capacity to
direct, control, and coordinate others;
Motivation—drive and level of energy.
A checkmark indicates that a résumé
item was used by recruiters to infer a
particular job applicant attribute for
both sales and accounting applicants.
The results are based on ratings of
113 recruiters.
SOURCE: Based on Barbara K. Brown and Michael A. Campion, “Biodata Phenomenology: Recruiters’ Perceptions and Use of Biographical Information
in Résumé Screening,” Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (1994): 901–902.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–22
Using Application Forms in HR Selection
(cont’d)
• Application Form Checklists
 Are usually referred to as training and experience
(“T&E”) evaluations
 Emphasize assessing applicants’ training, education,
and experience
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–23
Training and Experience (T&E) Evaluations
• Uses of T&E Evaluations
 As the sole basis for deciding if an individual is or is
not minimally qualified
 As a means for rank-ordering individuals from high to
low based on a T&E score
 As a basis for prescreening applicants prior to
administering more expensive, time-consuming
predictors (for example, an interview)
 In combination with other predictors used for making
an employment decision
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–24
FIGURE 9.1
Brief Training and Experience Evaluation Used
for Appraising Applications Submitted for the Job
of Clerk
Name of Applicant: __________________________________________
Directions: Before completing this form, review the minimum qualifications for the job
of Clerk that are listed below. Then, study each application form submitted for the job.
After reviewing each application, indicate if the applicant possesses each minimum
qualification. If an applicant meets the necessary requirements, check “Yes”; if not,
then check “No.” When there are job openings, applicants meeting all minimum
qualifications will be invited in for additional consideration. After completing the
checklist, please attach it to the application form and return the application to the
personnel file.
NOTE: This form is completed by a selection specialist.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–25
FIGURE 9.2
An Example Training and Experience Evaluation
Form for the Job of Personnel Research Analyst
NOTE: This form is completed by the job applicant.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–26
FIGURE 9.3
An Example Rating Form for Use in Evaluating
Training and Experience of Applicants for the Job
of Personnel Research Analyst
NOTE: This form is completed by a selection specialist.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–27
Reliability and Validity of T&E Evaluations
• Reliability
 T&E evaluations reflect high interrater reliability
estimates (.80s) with the task-based method
producing the highest reliability coefficient and the
grouping method producing the lowest
• Validity
 Validity of T&E ratings varies with the type of
procedure used


The behavioral consistency method demonstrated the
highest validity
The point- and task-based methods show useful validities
for applicant groups having low levels of job experience
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–28
Research Findings for T&E Evaluations
• T&E Evaluations
 Consistently predict important work outcomes
 Vary significantly in the strength of their predictive
validity


Some methods of evaluating experience and training exhibit
substantial correlations with success (e.g., the “behavioral
consistency” method, GPA)
Other methods reflect low validities (e.g., the point method)
 Are particularly valuable for the first three to five years
on the job
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–29
Methods of Collecting T&E Evaluation
Information
• Characteristics of T&E Evaluations
 A listing or description of tasks, KSAs, or other jobrelevant content areas
 A means by which applicants can describe, indicate,
or rate the extent of their training or experience with
these job content areas
 A basis for evaluating or scoring applicants’ selfreported training, experience, or education
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–30
Methods of T&E Evaluations
• Holistic Judgment
 An informal, unstructured approach that an individual
takes when reviewing an application or T&E form.
 An individual makes a cursory review of the
information and arrives at a broad, general judgment
of the applicant’s suitability.
 Because of its unstandardized nature and unknown
reliability and validity, it should be avoided as an
approach to T&E evaluations.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–31
Methods of T&E Evaluations
(cont’d)
• Point Method
 A preestablished rating system for crediting
applicants’ prior training, education, and experience
considered relevant to the job
 Points are assigned based on the recentness of
training experience, amount of job experience, and
amount of education received
 Analysts using the point method make their ratings
and then sum the credited points assigned
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–32
Methods of T&E Evaluations
(cont’d)
• Grouping Method
 This approach divides applicants into groups that best
represent each applicant’s level of qualifications.
 The number of groups used will depend on the
particular situation




High Group: suitable applicants well qualified for the job
Middle Group: applicants not fitting in either the high or low
group
Low Group: applicants with minimum qualifications but poorly
suited because of limited experience or training
Unqualified Group: applicants lacking minimum qualifications
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–33
Methods of T&E Evaluations
(cont’d)
• Behavioral Consistency Method
 Applicant descriptions of achievements related to key
job requirements or competencies are formally scored
using scales derived from subject matter experts
• Principles of the Method
 Behaviors evaluated have been identified by SMEs as
showing differences between superior and minimally
acceptable workers.
 Applicants’ past accomplishments can be reliably
rated by SMEs.
 Past accomplishments are considered predictive of
future behaviors
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–34
FIGURE 9.4
An Example of the Behavioral Consistency
Method of T&E Evaluation
Job Behavior: Conducting Empirical Research
Concerns the conduct of research activities including designing a research study, collecting and analyzing data to
test specific research hypotheses or answer research questions, and writing up research results in the form of a
formal report.
For the behavior Conducting Empirical Research that is defined above, think about your past activities and
accomplishments. Then write a narrative description of your activities and accomplishments in the space below.
In your description, be sure to answer the following questions:
1. What specifically did you do? When did you do it?
2. Give examples of what you did that illustrate how you accomplished the above behavior.
3. What percentage of credit do you claim for your work in this area?
Description: During my senior year (2005–2006), I wrote a senior research thesis as a partial requirement for
graduation with honors in psychology. I designed a research study to investigate the effects of interviewer race
on interviewee performance in a structured interview. I personally designed the research study and conducted it
in a metropolitan police department. White and African-American applicants for the job of patrol police officer
were randomly assigned to White and African-American interviewers. After conducting an analysis of the patrol
police job, a structured interview schedule was developed. The various interviewee-interviewer racial
combinations were then compared in terms of their performance in the structured interview. I consider the vast
majority of the work (80 percent) to be my own. My major professor accounted for about 20 percent of the work.
Her work consisted of helping to obtain site approval for the research, helping to design the study, and reviewing
my work products.
Name and Address of an Individual Who Can Verify the Work You Described Above:
Name:
Dr. Amy Prewett
Address:
Department of Psychology
Pascal Univ. State College, ID
Phone:
607-555-0821
NOTE: This form is completed by the job applicant.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–35
FIGURE 9.5
An Example Rating Scale for Scoring the
Behavioral Consistency Method of T&E Evaluation
Instructions for Scoring the Job Behavior: Conducting Empirical Research
Read the handwritten narrative the job applicant wrote describing activities and accomplishments in conducting
empirical research. Then study the scale below. Choose the one score on the scale you believe that best represents
or characterizes the applicant’s narrative description of past empirical research work.
Score
1 =
2 =
3 =
4 =
5 =
6 =
7 =
Empirical Research Behaviors
Worked as a member of a student team. Helped design a study, collect and analyze
data, and/or wrote a report describing the study and its results.
Independently designed a study, collected and analyzed data, and/or wrote a report
describing the study and its results. The study was conducted as a class requirement.
Independently designed a study, collected, and analyzed the data. The study was not
an academic requirement.
Worked as a research assistant for a professor. Helped with the collection and/or
analysis of the data. The study was or will be submitted for presentation at an
academic or professional meeting or will be submitted for journal publication.
Was coauthor or author of a paper that was submitted for presentation at an academic
or professional meeting. The paper involved the collection and analysis of data.
Wrote a research thesis as a graduation requirement that involved the collection of
data, analysis of data, and tests of research hypotheses or research questions.
Was a coauthor or author of a paper that was accepted for publication in a
professional or academic journal. The paper involved the collection and analysis of
data.
NOTE: This form is used by a selection specialist.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–36
Methods of T&E Evaluations
(cont’d)
• Task-Based Method
 Critical job tasks identified from comprehensive job
analysis serve as the basis for the task-based
method.


Applicants indicate on a list of tasks if they have performed
the tasks and, if so, how often
Applicants furnish specific information such that their selfratings can be verified
• KSA-Based Method
 Similar to the task-based method with the substitution
of KSAs on the questionnaire for applicant self-ratings
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–37
Recommendations for Using T&E Evaluations
• Use T&E evaluations to set specific minimum job
qualifications (KSAs), rather than using a selection standard
• Replace holistic methods with competency-based
approaches—behavioral consistency and grouping methods
• T&E evaluations are subject to the Uniforms Guidelines
• Use T&E evaluations only as rough screening procedures for
positions where previous experience and training are
necessary
• Forms and procedures for collecting and scoring T&E
evaluations should be standardized as much as possible
• Verify self-report data, particularly of data given by applicants
who are going to be offered a job
• Base final hiring decisions on other selection measures when
distortion of self-evaluation information is likely to be a
problem
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–38
Reference Checks
• Uses of Reference Information
 To verify information given by job applicants on other
selection measures
 To serve as a basis for either predicting the job
success of applicants, or screening out unqualified
applicants
 To uncover background information about applicants
that may not have been provided by applicants or
identified by other selection procedures
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–39
Reference Checks
(cont’d)
• Purposes
 To verify what applicants have self-reported on the
application form

Negative selection—detection of the unqualified—rather than
identification of the qualified
 To serve as a predictor of job success

The assumption about applicants that past performance
forecasts future performance is assessed by verifying how
well others say the applicants did
 To identify problems in applicants’ job-relevant, but
unreported, background histories to provide a
defense for a firm against negligent-hiring lawsuits
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–40
Reference Checks
(cont’d)
• Types of Reference Data Collected
 Employment and educational background data
 Appraisal of an applicant’s character and personality
 Estimates of an applicant’s job performance
 Willingness of the reference to rehire an applicant
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Reference
Checking
 Employers are prohibited from asking any questions
of references that they may not request of applicants
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–41
TABLE 9.8
Getting Adequate Employment Information on
Job Applicants
SOURCE: Data are based on a survey—report for Reference and Background
checks—conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management, January 2005.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–42
Reference Data
• Useful References
 Must have had a chance to observe the candidate in
relevant situations
 Must have knowledge of the candidate
 Must be competent to make the evaluations
requested
 Must be able to express themselves so their
comments are understood as intended
 Must want to give frank and honest assessments
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–43
Legal Issues in Reference Checking
• Defamation of Character
 A written (libel) or oral (slander) false statement
made by an employer about a previous employee
that damages the individual’s reputation
• Providing Reference Information
 Truthful information, based on facts, limited to the
appropriate business purpose (that is, reference
information), made on the proper occasion, and
given to appropriate parties is likely to be judged
as qualified privilege and, therefore, is not a
slander or libel against a former employee
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–44
Legal Issues in Reference Checking
(cont’d)
• Employer’s Liability for Negligent Hiring
 An injury to a third party is caused by an employee
 The employee is shown to be unfit for the job that
he or she holds
 The employer knew or should have known that the
employee was unfit if a background check or
criminal check had been conducted
 The injury to the third party was a foreseeable
outcome resulting from hiring the unfit employee
 The injury is a reasonable and probable outcome
of what the employer did or did not do in hiring the
individual
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–45
Legal Issues in Reference Checking
(cont’d)
• Bases for Negligent Hiring Lawsuits
 Intentional employee misconduct, such as a theft
committed by an employee with a history of
dishonesty
 Physical harm, such as a physical attack or sexual
assault by an employee with a violent past
 Previously exhibited sexually deviant behavior
 Acts by an employee who does not possess the
skill or ability to perform a job task (e.g., an
inexperienced truck driver)
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–46
Legal Issues in Reference Checking
(cont’d)
• Job Situations Requiring Background Investigations
and Reference Checks
 Unsupervised access to private residences
 Little or no direct supervision
 Public safety (e.g., transportation industry)
 Substantial personal contact with the general public
 Work with individuals receiving personal care (e.g.,
health care industry)
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–47
Legal Issues in Reference Checking
(cont’d)
• Guidelines for Providing Reference Information
 Do not give out reference information over the
telephone
 Document all information that is released
 Provide only specific, objective information
 Obtain written consent from the employee prior to
releasing reference information
 Do not answer a question involving an opinion as to
whether a previous employee would be rehired
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–48
Legal Issues in Reference Checking
(cont’d)
• Guidelines for Obtaining Reference Information
 Submit a written request of specific questions
 Include a release form signed by the applicant
 If previous employer refuses to provide information:




Call the employer and ask why the request was not honored
Ask how a request should be made so it will be honored
If previous employer refuses to give information, document
with date, time, and name of the person refusing the request
Tell employer that it is possible the applicant will be told that
the employer’s refusal was the reason for the lack of an offer
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–49
Reference Checks
(cont’d)
• Methods of Collecting Reference Data
 Telephone
 The Internet
 E-mail
 Fax
 Mail
 In person
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–50
TABLE 9.9
Some Example Questions Frequently Asked in a
Telephone Reference Check
1.
The candidate was employed with your firm in the position of (position) ______ from ______ to
______, and his or her final salary was $ ____ per annum. Is this correct?
2.
Would you rehire the job candidate? Is the candidate eligible for reemployment?
3.
Why did the candidate leave your firm?
4.
How would you rate the candidate’s overall job performance—on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being
high)—compared to the performance of others with similar responsibilities?
5.
On average, how many times did the candidate miss work? Come in late? Did he or she fail to
meet commitments?
6.
Does the candidate work well with others (coworkers, superiors, subordinates, customers)? Is he
or she a team player?
7.
What were the candidate’s responsibilities in order of importance? Describe the candidate’s
general duties:
[Or you could ask:] Let me read you what the candidate says his or her duties were at your
organization. [After reading them ask:] Is this accurate?
8.
What were the candidate’s principal strengths, outstanding successes, and significant failures in
his or her job activities?
Describe the candidate’s last job performance evaluation:________ What were his or her
strengths? What recommended improvement areas were noted?
9.
10. How would you describe the applicant’s success in training, developing, and motivating
subordinates?
SOURCE: Questions are based on H. C. Pryon, “The Use and Misuse of Previous Employer References in Hiring,” Management of Personnel Quarterly
9(1970): 15-22; Peter A. Rabinowitz, “Reference Auditing: An Essential Management Tool,” Personnel Administrator 24(1979): 37; Eward C. Andler and Dara
Herbst, The Complete Reference Checking Handbook, 2d. ed. (New York, NY: AMACOM, 2004); and Human Resources Guide, (ed. Robert J. Nobile, Sandra
King, Steven C. Kahn, and David Rosen (Boston: West Group, A Thomson Company, 2000).
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–51
FIGURE 9.6
Example of a Mail Questionnaire Reference Check
Sales Applicant Reference Check
We are in the process of considering James Ridley Parrish (SS Number: 123-45-6789) for a sales position in our firm. In considering him/her, it would be
helpful if we could review your appraisal of his/her previous work with you. For your information, we have enclosed a statement signed by him/her
authorizing us to contact you for information on his/her previous work experience with you. We would certainly appreciate it if you would provide us with
your candid opinions of his/her employment. If you have any questions or comments you would care to make, please feel free to contact us at the number
listed in the attached cover letter. At any rate, thank you for your consideration of our requests for the information requested below. As you answer the
questions, please keep in mind that they should be answered in terms of your knowledge of his/her previous work with you.
NOTE: This form is completed by the reference giver.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–52
Letters of Recommendation
• Disadvantages of Reference-Furnished Information
 Job-relevance of the information will vary across reference letter
writers
 Letter quality depends on the effort expended by the writers and
their ability to express their thoughts.
 Writers are overly positive in their evaluations and often lack
specificity and accuracy in letter writing
 The same job-relevant information will not be obtained on each
applicant
 Information relevant to areas or issues important to the hiring
organization may be omitted in the letter
 Scoring of the letter is subjective and based on the reader’s
interpretation
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–53
Sources of Reference Data
• Former Employers
• Public Records
• Personal References
 Criminal records
• Investigative Agencies
 Motor vehicle records
 Consumer reports

Business necessity,
disclosure, and written
consent requirements of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act
 Workers’
compensation records
 Federal court records
 Educational records
 Investigative consumer
reports
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–54
Recommended Steps for Using Reference Checks
1. Reference data sought should involve only jobrelated concerns
2. If tailoring reference check content to specific job
content, more than one general form is needed
3. Reference checks are subject to the Uniform
Guidelines
4. A structured reference checking system is less likely
to be open to charges of discrimination
5. Ask applicants to give written permission to contact
their references
6. Train reference takers to interview reference givers
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–55
Recommended Steps for Using Reference Checks
(cont’d)
7. Record all reference check information in writing
8. If applicant-provided references do not respond, ask
the applicant for additional references
9. Check all application form and résumé information
10. Use other sources to verify the accuracy of any
negative reference information used to reject an
applicant
 Be sure that disqualification on the basis of the
information will distinguish between those who will fail
and those who will succeed on the job (job-related
negative information)
 Use the same information consistently for all
applicants
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–56
Key Terms and Concepts
• Biographical data
• EEOC Preemployment
Guidelines
• Adverse impact questions
• Disparate treatment
questions
• Résumé fraud
• Weighted Application Blank
(WAB)
• T&E evaluations
• Holistic judgment
• Point method
• Grouping method
• Behavioral consistency
method
• Task-based method
• KSA-based method
• Reference checks
• Letters of
recommendation
• Fair Credit Reporting Act
• Defamation of character
• Negligent hiring
• Background
investigations
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
9–57