Re: Testing for (in)competence

["Robert W. Jones" <shaka -at- NETCOM -dot- COM>]

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