IPMA-HR is in the final stretch of finishing up the validation study on our entry-level firefighter (FF-EL) test series, but we still need your help! We are seeking a few more agencies who have administered a test from the FF-EL series to provide us the scores received by firefighters who were selected for the job.
Once we’ve received these test scores from you, we ask that each firefighter’s supervisor complete a brief 9-question performance evaluation. This will allow us to see whether our tests from the FF-EL series continue to be successful in predicting on-the-job performance.
For your help, you will receive $100 off your agency’s next IPMA-HR assessment order. In addition, your participation in this project will provide direct evidence supporting the validity of these exams and their use in your agency.
If you would like to participate, please visit the following link to provide your test scores:
Our Research Associate, Julia Hind-Smith, will then follow up with you to provide further instructions on completing the performance evaluations. If you have any questions about the study, please feel free to reach out to Julia at email@example.com.
(Please Note: All information gathered for this study will remain strictly confidential. The data gathered will be combined with data from other departments and only be reported in the form of group statistics.)
For this month’s blog, I will look at what is one of the hottest questions in private and public-sector personnel selection – “Should we be gamifying our assessments?” In my opinion, the answer is “Yes!” and I will take this blog to explain why.
“Gamification” falls within the larger topic of “how should I incorporate emerging technologies into my assessment strategies.” Now, one might legitimately ask how it is that someone who started doing math on a slide rule can claim to be an expert on emerging technologies. I will simply remind you that Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Paul Allen, Bill Gates, and I were born at roughly the same time. So, despite huge differences in our net worth, we do share a similar generational zeitgeist.
What Does Gamifying Mean?
Gamifying is one type of Technology Enhanced Assessment (TEA). Related types of TEA include:
games (so obviously there is a difference between games and gamifying).
enhanced item types.
the use of avatars.
big data and advanced algorithms.
Gamification (or gamifying) is defined as “the application of game mechanics, elements, and features to non-game environments,” or in this case “the application of game-type elements to assessments used in personnel selection.” This differs from the use of true games in selection, although the difference is probably more of a continuum than a sharp distinction, as both games and gamification can be used in personnel selection. The differences between games and gamification can be summarized as:
With games, the person knows they are playing a game, whereas with gamification, the applicant still knows they are taking a test.
Games are meant to be fun and are structured to have clear rules that define the game play; gamified tests are seen as a more serious activity.
Games have different play sections and winning is the goal; gamified tests are structured similar to traditional assessments and getting hired is the goal.
IPMA-HR is currently seeking participants for a nationwide Office of Fire Marshal/Office of Fire Prevention study. This study is the first step in the development of a new Fire Marshal Test. The first part of the study involves surveying current members of the Office of Fire Prevention to learn about the important duties and demands of their job.
Examples of applicable positions include, but are not limited to: Fire Marshal, Fire/Arson Investigator, Premise Officer, Deputy Fire Marshal, Fire Prevention Officer, Fire Inspector, and Code Enforcement Officer.
If you or someone you know holds one of the above positions or a similar position, we would greatly value your input in developing our newest test series.
Participants will be entered into a raffle with a $500 prize! Participating agencies will also receive a 15% discount toward a future IPMA-HR assessment product purchase. Interested parties can use the following link to participate:
Number 4 in the Validity of Public Safety Assessments Series
The idea for this primer series germinated from a simple question – “Could you do an article looking at the validity of tests used in public safety assessment?” In response, I decided to do a series of articles aimed to inform, but also designed to keep things simple. The blogs in this series were intended to cover:
Finally, trying to address the original question I was asked, are public safety assessments valid?
The first three blogs in the primer series have been published and are available by clicking the links above.
This is the fourth and final article in the series and is intended to answer the question regarding the validity of tests for public safety jobs. I define public safety jobs here as including police, fire, and emergency medical services (EMS). In addition, human resource professionals are usually interested in the use of tests in both entry level screening and for arriving at promotion decisions. Continue reading →
Number 3 in the Validity of Public Safety Assessments Series
The idea for this primer series germinated from a simple question – “Could you do an article looking at the validity of tests used in public safety assessment?” In response, I decided to do a series of articles aimed to inform, but also designed to keep things simple. The blogs in this series are intended to cover:
Are public safety assessments good tests and are they valid?
The first two blogs in the primer series has been published and are available by clicking the links above.
This is the third in the series and is intended to provide a basic introduction into the various kinds of validity evidence. By validity evidence, I do not mean the obvious distinction between the big four of:
Transfer or Transportability
Understanding the distinctions between the four types of validity listed above is important. However, in this blog, I mean something different by types of validity evidence. As our ultimate purpose or goal is to respond to the question as to whether tests are valid for purposes of public sector assessment, we can consider the following five types of validity evidence as relevant:
Local Validation Based on Criterion-Related Evidence
Validity Generalization Evidence Based on Tests in General
Validity Generalization Evidence Based on Specific Occupation
Validity Generalization Evidence Based on Specific Test
Traditionally, I have started the New Year with a blog that recaps the past and looks to the future in assessment. This year we say good bye to 2016, and enter 2017. Of course, the big news in the United States was the election of a new President. I am not bold enough to claim I can predict how a new administration will impact public sector human resources. However, I do believe that I can make a prediction regarding the three hot trends for next year, and, they are each a carryover from the past several years.
My habit has been to insert a statement concerning how difficult it is to predict the future. However, this year I was surprised to find that many of the topics I would select for future trends, were actually covered in my blogs over the past year. So, maybe I am getting better at prophecy with advancing age.
My predictions for future trends or hot topics over the coming year include:
In this blog, I will respond to what I see as practical questions that often arise in planning for a panel interview. I do apologize for the delay in the production of this third, and final, blog on the interview. Unfortunately, at times, real life intervenes.
Due to recent updates to the published source material for our series of Police Supervisor (PSUP), Police Lieutenant (PL), Fire Company Officer (FCO), and Police Detective (PDET), we have decided to update several of the test questions that appear in those test forms. In addition, we have updated the reading lists belonging to each test to reflect the most current published source material.
To assist our customers in more easily recognizing which test version they are administering, we have reprinted the new tests under new names. The new tests correspond to the old ones and have undergone changes as follows:
If you’ve already distributed the reading lists for any of the older versions of these tests, then you do not need to take any further action to redistribute a new reading list. When you order your test, just make sure to order the test that matches the reading list you provided to your candidates. We will retain sufficient stock of the existing tests to accommodate those processes that have already begun.
In the last blog, we investigated possible improvements that could be made in the use of individual interviews in pre-employment or promotional screening. This month we expand our discussion to include the panel or board interview, an approach used by many public sector organizations.
As is often the case, once I start on a topic I have trouble controlling myself and my word count quickly gets out of control (my students have learned that if you ask me a simple question it can easily turn into an hour-long response). So, I have divided this blog into a 2a and 2b. In 2a, which you are reading right now, I:
Delineate the major characteristics of the panel interview;
Offer a version of a panel interview checklist;
Discuss the need for structure and training;
Provide an overview of the IPMA-HR Police Structured Interview System (POSIS).
Then, in a soon-to-follow Part 2b, I will answer frequently asked or encountered questions regarding the panel interview. Continue reading →