About Yari Randall

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Yari Randall has created 10 blog entries.

IPMA-HR’s Assessment Services Department Launches New Electronic Scoring Service

IPMA-HR’s Assessment Services Department recently piloted a new electronic scoring service in December 2019. The goal of the pilot was determine whether the new service would be implemented permanently and replace the old one. The results of the pilot were overwhelmingly positive, with test security agreement signers applauding the following features:

Eliminates Shipping Costs. The new electronic scoring service eliminates shipping costs associated with mailing the answer sheets – you can now upload them electronically!
Results in 1 Business Day. Now that you do not have to mail answer sheets, you can enjoy a significantly shorter turnaround time to getting your results. Results are delivered within one business day of receiving the answer sheets.
Easy-to-Read Reports. The new electronic scoring service provides easy-to-interpret score and test reports, and assist with IPMA-HR’s collection of national test response data.

Utilizing the new electronic scoring service also makes it easier for your agency to participate in future criterion-related validation studies conducted by the testing experts at IPMA-HR.

Although we gave the electronic scoring service a major upgrade, we managed to keep the price the same at $50.00 + $0.50 per answer sheet. Be sure to as your assessment services representative about adding electronic scoring to your next test order!

By Yari Randall|2020-01-24T15:53:45-04:00January 24th, 2020|Test Administration, Test Scores|Comments Off

Exciting News: New Answer Sheets and Data Collection Method

Attention hand-scoring customers: You will notice new and improved candidate answer sheets and scoring stencils in your test orders starting June 5, 2019! The most notable change to the answer sheets, besides minor layout improvements, is the collection of demographic information directly on the answer sheets. The Assessment Services Department recently made these changes to facilitate test response data collection and to make the submission process easier for customers. Gone are the days of having to physically mail your test response data back to IPMA-HR (unless you want to). You can now conveniently scan, upload, and send your completed and ungraded candidate answer sheets securely online to IPMA-HR’s Assessment Services Department!

Why share scores from your test administration with the Assessment Services Department?

Have you ever called the Assessment Services Department and asked for guidance on setting cut scores or for national data on adverse impact? As a member of IPMA-HR’s Assessment Services Department, I can personally attest that we receive these calls all the time! I am always happy to be able to share national data with customers to help guide their decisions regarding setting cut scores, investigating/addressing adverse impact, and handling item challenges.

As test developers and test users, we have a legal responsibility to make fair assessments and selection decisions. IPMA-HR’s Assessment Services Department is dedicated to helping our customers make fair decisions. To assist with this process, we routinely collects test score and demographic data for each of our tests from our customers. The purpose of collecting this information is to allow us to run adverse impact analyses on our exams; this information is then provided to our test users in the form of a Test Response Data Report and includes the score frequency distribution and adverse impact data. It is our hope that these reports can help inform our users’ selection decisions. However, we would not be able to compile and share these reports to help inform your selection decisions without your help! These reports are compiled thanks to the agencies that choose to voluntarily submit their candidate data from each test administration. All data is held completely confidential and reported only in the form of group statistics.

How can I submit data from my agency’s test administration?

Be on the lookout for the new Test Response Data Submission forms in your test orders, which contains important instructions for how to submit your data either electronically or by mail. As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Assessment Services Department: assessment@ipma-hr.org or 1-800-381-TEST (8378). Thank you!

By Yari Randall|2019-06-10T07:31:26-04:00June 10th, 2019|Adverse Impact, Housekeeping|Comments Off

Test Fairness and the Release of IPMA-HR’s New Passpoint Guide

I love a good underdog story — stories about people who started from nothing and, despite their circumstances, were able to climb to the top and experience success. In the American culture especially, underdogs are highly regarded. Why do Americans love underdog stories so much?

Underdogs are the manifestation of the American Dream. For decades, immigrants have flocked to the United States in pursuit of the American Dream: The idea that in the United States of America, all citizens have equal opportunities and an equal chance of achieving their goals and dreams. My parents, like many other American parents, instilled in me the ideology that if you work hard to achieve your goals, you will succeed.

Despite the ideology America was built on, our country has struggled to consistently provide equal opportunities to all. As discussed in the previous legal law series posts, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the first pivotal piece of American legislation toward equal opportunity for all because it outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The purpose of this piece of legislation was to ensure fairness, and as test developers and test users, we know all too well the importance of fairness in selection decisions.

Importance of fairness in selection decisions

Fairness in testing has recently been thrown back into the limelight due to the recent College Admissions Cheating Scam (Yan, 2019). The scandal has caused an uproar in America because it has exposed hypocrisy in the American Dream, which instead feels like it should be defined as, “in the United States of America, wealthy citizens have better opportunities and a better chance of achieving their goals and dreams.” The public is questioning now, more than ever, test security, fairness, and the people in positions of power who make the important and life-changing decisions of who gets in, who gets hired, and who gets promoted.

As test developers and test users, candidates are looking to us to make fair decisions. Test developers have a responsibility to develop tests according to professional and legal guidelines. If fairness and/or adverse impact analysis data has been collected on assessments, test developers should make that information available to test users to help inform their selection decisions. IPMA-HR’s Assessment Services Department provides several free white papers to help test users ensure fairness in testing, including Considerations in Addressing Adverse Impact, and Considerations in Test Accommodations.

Test users have the responsibility to make fair selection and promotional decisions, which includes the choice of proctor. I receive many calls for advice on test fairness, adverse impact and test accommodations. But hands-down, the most common fairness-related question I receive is: Where do I set my passpoint?

Setting a valid, fair and appropriate passpoint is often the most challenging activity associated with the test development and administration process. Agencies have a responsibility to use great care and consideration when setting a passpoint, particularly when hiring decisions are based, even in part, on exam results.

IPMA-HR’s Assessment Services Department now offers an efficient and effective solution: the Passpoint Guide. The Passpoint Guide provides step-by-step instructions and Excel spreadsheets to show you how to determine a fair threshold of acceptable performance on the score continuum. In other words: who deserves to pass the test. And, as always, our Assessment Services staff is available to help answer any fairness related questions you may have.

References

Yan, H. (2019, March 19). What we know so far in the college admissions cheating scandal. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/us/what-we-know-college-admissions-cheating-scandal/index.html

By Yari Randall|2019-04-02T09:04:01-04:00April 2nd, 2019|Announcements, New Product|Comments Off

Court Decisions Affecting Test Development and Usage: Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)

At last, we have reached the end of the employment law series. It is important to note that the four cases discussed in this series are in no way exhaustive of all the legal cases that exist with implications for test development and usage. They are simply the major and most often referenced cases.

As test users, if you ever find yourself asking “Am I allowed to do this” before, during or after a test administration, chances are there are legal cases and/or professional guidelines that can answer your question. If you’re still feeling uneasy, try asking the test developer or your legal team for advice. The most common questions I personally receive are:

Although this exam was designed for X position, could I also use it for a similar Y position?

Where should I set my cut score?

How should I determine who passes the exam?

Test validation can be a confusing topic, and it is my hope that this series of posts has clarified the purpose and importance of test validation for test users and developers. I like to think of test validation as the process of gathering evidence that your test is job-related. What does “job-related” mean and how do you gather this evidence? This is where the court cases and legal/professional guidelines really come in handy. For example, the case of Washington v. Davis (1976) involved debate over the strategy used to provide support for job-relatedness — reviewing the Court’s decision on this case can help provide insight into what is likely to be accepted in Court. Other useful resources will be listed at the end of this post, but for now, let’s get started with Ricci v. Destefano (2009).

Ricci v. Destefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009)

New Haven, Connecticut’s Fire Department required all firefighters seeking promotion to captain or lieutenant to pass a written examination that was developed and validated by a test development company. The African American and Hispanic/Latino firefighters received significantly lower scores on the exams than the White candidates for the position, which would have resulted in none of the minority test takers being eligible for promotion based on their test scores. The Black and Hispanic/Latino applicants then threatened to sue the city of New Haven if they used the results from the test to make promotional decisions and demanded that the city invalidate the test on the basis of adverse impact. Fearing litigation, the city of New Haven complied and settled the case without litigation. The test results were ignored, and no candidates were promoted based on the results.

The White firefighters who would have received promotions based on their passing score were not happy with the city’s decision to invalidate the results and argued that this was unfair due to the exam having been properly validated and administered. They brought their case to the U.S. Supreme Court for verdict.

The Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that although the results of the exam would have resulted in disparate impact against Black and Latino/Hispanic firefighters, it was unlawful for the city of New Haven to invalidate the results due to the exam having been properly validated and administered.

The Implications: Needless to say, this court decision in particular was controversial and perhaps confusing, but let’s try to clear some things up. First, the Court made it clear that adverse impact alone is not an indication of an invalid test or that a test should not be used for hiring or promotional purposes. This is important because “adverse” or “disparate impact” are words that cause many test users to shudder due to the negative connotation. To avoid using the results of an examination that has sufficient evidence to support it’s use due to fear of adverse impact litigation is therefore unwise for test users, and additional steps need to be taken.

The Court also made clear that when adverse impact is found, the burden of proof shifts to the test user (the city of New Haven) to defend the use of the test as a “business necessity.” That is, the city of New Haven needed to prove that they needed to use the test to be able to properly determine who is qualified and eligible for promotion. Once business necessity has been proven, the city then needs to prove that they investigated alternate means to make the promotional decision that could have achieved the same result without adverse impact. If no alternate means (or alternate test) were found that could achieve the same result without adverse impact, then the Court is likely to rule in favor of the test user.

Test developers and test users should attempt to conduct adverse impact analyses when data permits. Test developers should make this information available to test users, and test users would also benefit from submitting their candidate data to the test development company. These analyses will help to first determine if adverse impact has historically been indicated. If your agency will be using an examination that is known to have adverse impact, be sure to maintain the evidence you need to prove that using the exam is a business necessity (job analysis information, technical reports, etc.). Test users are also encouraged to investigate many alternate testing means before making their final decision on which test to use — doing so also provides support for using your chosen exam.

References

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009)

Other useful resources

SIOP’s Principles for the Validation and Use of Selection Procedures (2019)

APA, AERA, and NCME’s Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014)

Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978)

Adverse Impact: Implications for Organizational Staffing and High Stakes Selection (2010) (Edited by James L. Outtz)

By Yari Randall|2019-03-27T11:19:48-04:00March 27th, 2019|Adverse Impact|Comments Off

Court Decisions Affecting Test Development and Usage: Washington v. Davis (1976)

It’s Friday, and I’m sitting at my desk singing “Woahhh, we’re halfway there. Woahhh! Livin’ On a Prayer.” Why? Because we are halfway through the employment law series! In the first two posts, we reviewed the cases of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) and Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975) and brushed up on the important decisions that affect test development and usage. For the final two posts of this series, we will review the cases of Washington v. Davis (1976) and Ricci v. DeStefano (2009). Let’s get started!

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)

The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPD) required all applicants seeking entry into the police academy to pass an exam intended to assess cognitive traits such as verbal ability, vocabulary and reading comprehension. At their set cut score, approximately four times as many Black applicants failed the test compared to Whites. African American test-takers who failed the exam at the set cut score then sought judgment that the exam unlawfully discriminated against Black applicants.

The case first went to two lower courts for verdict. The District Court initially ruled that the exam was “directly related to a determination of whether the applicant possesses sufficient skills requisite to the demands of the curriculum a recruit must master at the police academy.” In other words, the District Court ruled that the exam had been validated and shown to be related to “the demands a recruit must master at the police academy.”

However, the DC Court of Appeals then ruled the opposite: “the adverse impact was sufficient to establish a constitutional violation, absent proof by petitioners that the test was an adequate measure of job performance in addition to being an indication of probable success in the training program.” In other words, the DC Court of Appeals ruled that it was not enough to show that the exam was related to the demands of the police academy, but also to the job itself.

The Decision: The Supreme Court made the final decision that the District Court was correct and the DC Court of Appeals erred. The test “was directly related to the requirements of the police training program and … a positive relationship between the test and training-course performance was sufficient to validate the former, wholly aside from its possible relationship to actual performance as a police officer.”

The Implications: In a nutshell, the conflict between the District Court and the Court of Appeals concerned the appropriateness of the validation strategy used. When candidates challenge hiring decisions based on disparate impact, the test development and validation strategy are usually reviewed by the courts — and with great scrutiny — to investigate the job-relatedness of the exam.

MPD attempted to provide support for the validity or job-relatedness of the exam by presenting the significant relationship found between exam scores and police academy performance. The Court of Appeals challenged this validation strategy as inappropriate on its own due to the criterion measure of “police academy performance.” Instead, the Court of Appeals argued that a relationship needed to be established between exam scores and on-the-job performance. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the validation strategy was appropriate and the relationship between exam scores and police academy performance was sufficient to provide support for job-relatedness.

The implications for test developers are huge! The criteria used in validation studies are not limited to job performance. You do not absolutely have to establish a relationship with the exam and job performance for it to be valid or constitutionally acceptable.This is great news for test developers because adequate measures of job performance are not always available, and not being limited to this sole criterion measure allows many other avenues for investigating the relationship between test scores and aspects of the job.

Test users should be sure to read the test’s technical report for details on any studies investigating the relationship with the exam and aspects of the job. Look at the type of job aspects used in the studies (e.g., job performance, academy scores, training performance) and how it was measured (e.g., supervisory ratings of performance, attendance records, negative customer service reports) to see if you measure the same job aspects in your agency. This information can help you gauge the appropriateness of using the exam at your agency.

References

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)

By Yari Randall|2019-03-08T08:09:57-04:00March 8th, 2019|Adverse Impact|1 Comment

Court Decisions Affecting Test Development and Usage: Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975)

Test developers and test users alike need to be informed of the legal and professional guidelines that govern employment testing. Why? Stay tuned, at the end of this series (read part one), I will present specific cases where agencies have violated these guidelines — and what and how much it cost them.

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody is a case that perfectly illustrates the cost of cutting corners.

When I think of the lesson learned in this case, it takes me back to the day I attempted to cut corners on my math homework. My Calculus teacher had suspected for a while that most people in the class were not actually attempting the homework calculations and simply using a calculator. One day, I guess he got fed up and made an announcement when handing out the nightly homework that we must “show your work.” Despite his instruction, me being the busy teenager that I was (joking), I attempted to cut a corner to finish my math homework faster by using the calculator instead of showing my work. The next morning when the teacher came around to collect homework, he explicitly stated that anyone who didn’t show their work this time would get a zero.

“We’ll see about that,” I thought. I quickly tried working out the problems before my teacher arrived at my desk to collect my homework. I was sweating and, perhaps unsurprisingly, I did not finish in time. My teacher caught what I was doing, and I received a much-deserved zero. Needless to say, I’ve avoided cutting corners ever since.

The case of Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody is similar in that it involves cutting corners. Just as cutting corners did not turn out well for me (or my math grade), cutting corners definitely did not turn out well for Albemarle Paper Co.

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975)

Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Albemarle Paper Co. (Roanoke Rapids, NC) explicitly excluded Black employees from high-skilled and higher-paying positions. This is similar to the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) in that Black employees were restricted to the lower-paying departments. Of course, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this practice had been made illegal, and Albemarle Paper Co. permitted Black employees to transfer to the high-skilled positions or lines of work if they passed the Wonderlic Test, and another intelligence test called the Beta Examination Test.

Albemarle employees who were already in a certain line of work or a high-skilled department were not required to take or pass the exam to retain their jobs or qualify for promotions within the same department. Despite Albemarle removing the exclusion of Black employees from high-skilled, higher-paying positions, Black employees were still not able to secure these promotions or positions due to their not being able to pass the exams at the set cut score, which was based on national norms.

Approximately 10 years after the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, several present and former African American Albemarle Paper Co. employees filed a suit against the company on the basis that the testing procedure resulted in disparate impact against minorities.

Throwback to Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

If you’ve learned anything from the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), you should already be thinking, “I hope Albemarle Paper Co. did a job analysis to support the job-relatedness of the test. The law states that you cannot test for qualifications that are not job-related.”

Well, I think Albemarle Paper Co. was thinking that, too. Four months before the trial, the company paid a professional to validate the exams. This person attempted to lump positions together based on the level of the position in the career progression lines; however, he/she did not attempt to analyze the individual jobs in terms of the specific skills they require. Essentially, they attempted to provide support that the exam could be used across multiple positions, as it was being used, without analyzing the specific skills needed for each position.

The Decision: The Court ruled the validation method unacceptable, and condemned the company’s decision to validate the exam only after they were being sued. The Court also explicitly stated, “A test may be used in jobs other than those for which it has been professionally validated only if there are no significant differences between the studied and unstudied jobs.” Again, the professional hired by Albemarle Paper Co. to validate the exams did not investigate whether necessary skills differed among job groups, and therefore did not have sufficient evidence that the exam is suitable for use across jobs.

The Implications: This case re-emphasized the importance of employment examinations being job-related, a decision that was first mandated in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971). This case also emphasizes the importance for test developers and test users to conduct/coordinate job analysis and validation studies to provide support for the job-relatedness piece. Test-users are strongly encouraged to read the technical report that accompanies each exam and the results of the job analysis the exam is based on, which will help determine if the exam assesses skills that are necessary for a particular position in your agency.

Test developers should be careful to link the developed examination to the required skills of the position and to document this process thoroughly (see job analysis for more information).

Author’s Note: The case of Albemarle v. Moody resulted in several other decisions that affect back pay awards. Those decisions were not discussed in this post, but for more information, please see the references below.

References

Albemarle v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975)
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42, U.S.C.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)

By Yari Randall|2019-02-25T13:10:14-04:00February 25th, 2019|Adverse Impact, Job Analysis|Comments Off

Court Decisions Affecting Test Development and Usage: Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971)

Happy Black History Month! As you know, every February is reserved as Black History Month as a way to encourage the citizens of America to remember and reflect on important people and events in African American history. As employment test developers and test users, we would especially benefit from reflecting on the civil rights movement, which culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After all, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent litigation have set strict legal and professional guidelines regarding tests and adverse impact that must be adhered to with care by employment test developers and test users alike.

Today, we’ll review the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) — a major court decision that affects test development and usage.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971)

Duke Power Co. was a public utility company that serviced the general public in the U.S. Carolinas. The company was challenged for putting a policy in place that would inhibit African Americans from transferring out of the labor department — the department with the lowest paying jobs in the company — into other positions.

In 1955, Duke Power Co. imposed the following qualifications for placement in any section of the company, apart from the lowest-paying labor department:

Candidates must possess a high school education.
Candidates must achieve satisfactory scores on the Wonderlic Personnel Test and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test.

Approximately six years after the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, Willie Griggs and several fellow African American Duke Power Co. employees filed a class action suit against the company for their transfer policy. Griggs and his co-workers argued that the policy unfairly discriminated against African American employees and, therefore, was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Cognitive ability and aptitude tests like the Wonderlic and Bennett exams are known to have adverse impact against protected groups. Additionally, in the 1970s, approximately only 30 percent of African Americans had completed four years of high school (Educational Attainment by Race and Hispanic Origin, n.d.).

The Decision: The Court ruled that Duke Power Company’s transfer policy did in fact unlawfully discriminate against African Americans. It is important to note that the Court made this decision not because the transfer policy had adverse impact. Although the exams used were professionally developed, the Court ruled that “neither [test] was directed or intended to measure the ability to learn to perform a particular job or category of jobs.” In other words, neither exam was shown to be related to any particular position in the company. The Court thus set the prerequisite for all selection procedures: They must be job-related.

The Implications: Unsurprisingly, most public sector agencies these days use cognitive or knowledge-based tests that are job-specific instead of general cognitive ability tests such as the Wonderlic (Sproule, 2009). Test users benefit from using job-specific tests and, if a test from a test development company such as IPMA-HR is administered, it is important to ensure that the test assesses competencies important for effectively performing the job specifically at your agency.

A good starting point for this is to compare the job analysis your agency conducted for the position to the job analysis conducted by the test development company. For more information on job analysis or gauging the job-relatedness of a stock test within your agency, please feel free to email me or comment on this post.

For test developers, the job-relatedness component should be embedded in the test design. IPMA-HR’s Assessment Services Department starts each test development project with a national job analysis as the first step in providing support for job-relatedness. Please check out our website for information on current test development opportunities.

Sources

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42, U.S.C.

Educational Attainment by Race and Hispanic Origin. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec04.pdf

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)

Sproule, C.F. (2009). Rationale and Research Evidence Supporting the Use of Content Validation in Personnel Assessment: A monograph of the International Personnel Assessment Council. International Personnel Testing Council (IPAC).

By Yari Randall|2019-02-15T12:38:15-04:00February 12th, 2019|Adverse Impact, Job Analysis, Public Safety Testing|2 Comments

Calling All Police Departments: Send in your Police Officer and Police Lieutenant Job Descriptions

IPMA-HR’s Assessment Services Department is developing new entry-level Police Officer and promotional Police Lieutenant exams. The first step in the test development process is the development of a job analysis questionnaire to determine the most important tasks, duties and qualifications to perform as police officers and lieutenants. In order to compile a list of duties and qualifications for use in the job analysis questionnaire, we are requesting that police departments submit any job descriptions for the ranks of police officer and police lieutenant. All submitted materials will remain completely confidential. Please forward job descriptions to yrandall@ipma-hr.org. Thank you!

By Yari Randall|2019-02-04T18:47:33-04:00February 1st, 2019|Job Analysis, Products & Services, Public Safety Testing, Public Safety Tests, Uncategorized|Comments Off

The Five Worst Test-taker Tendencies from the Desk of a Test Developer

Have you ever sat down to take a test, read the first question, and immediately thought, “I’m in trouble!”? We’ve all been there, and for most of us, our hatred and avoidance of written tests started in grade school. There are also people, like me, who LOVE tests and for some reason are very good at taking them. We either go on to be test developers or, even more annoying, self-proclaimed “good test-takers.”

As a test developer, I regularly study test-taker tendencies in pilot studies. I observe and watch them for hours, taking note of facial expressions, movements, and any other indicators of confusion and fatigue. As a self-proclaimed ‘good test-taker,’ I have also cringed at some of the the tendencies I’ve seen and practiced self-restraint in not correcting these mistakes as I see them (a problem that many proctors have reported to me as well). Although I may not be able to stop test-takers in their tracks to correct these common mistakes, hopefully this post will make its way to a few self-proclaimed bad test-takers to help improve their strategy.

Listed below are the five most common mistakes made by test-takers, as reported to IPMA-HR by test users.

Mistake 1: The candidate who didn’t use the study guide.

The first major disadvantage candidates create for themselves happens before the test even begins: not taking advantage of available study guides. Most (and all of IPMA-HR’s) study guides contain a full practice test, answer explanations, and test-taker tips.

Study guides with practice tests give candidates exposure to the test’s time limit, format, instructions and question types. If you are a candidate who often runs out of time during exams, misunderstands instructions, or struggles with certain question types, be sure to take full advantage of available study guides.

When taking the practice test, treat it like a real test administration. Try to standardize your environment as much as possible to make it mimic the environment at your testing center (i.e., no electronics or talking, set a timer, turn up the A/C if your testing center runs on the chilly side).

TIP: When you receive a study guide, first attempt the entire timed practice test without any assistance. If possible, take note of how long you spend on each test question, or have someone else do it for you (see Mistake 3). This initial trial run can reveal areas of weakness that should be heavily targeted in your study endeavors. After taking the practice test, read the explanations for any answers you got wrong, and for questions that you may have gotten correct but spent a significant amount of time on. Even if you got a question correct, if you spent a significant amount of time on it, you probably were not using the best strategy to come to the right answer.

After identifying your weaknesses and targeting them for improvement, attempt the practice test again. Repeat this process again and again.

Mistake 2: The candidate who didn’t read the directions.

One of the worst feelings in the world (besides hitting your elbow on a hard surface) is realizing that you missed a test question due to either misunderstanding or failing to read the directions. It is important for candidates to note that employers and proctors are typically not sympathetic to test-takers who clearly did not read the directions. Some candidates who have realized this mistake before leaving the testing center have approached proctors asking to correct/change their answers – and justly so, they’ve been met with a hard NO.

Not only does failing to read the directions hurt your test score, but it can also hurt your reputation and immediately tell your potential employer that you cannot follow instructions (Yikes!).

TIP: Take the time to thoroughly read the instructions that accompany each test question. Do not assume that the instructions will be exactly the same as the study guide, and therefore you do not need to read them. Be sure you understand the instructions before attempting to answer the question, and immediately report any confusion with the instructions to your proctor. Proctors should be careful to not give unauthorized assistance on the exam.

Mistake 3: The candidate who spent too much time on one question.

Before taking an exam, it is important to take note of the time limit and the total number of questions. For example, the majority of IPMA-HR’s 100-question tests have a 2.5-hour time limit, which means that candidates should aim to spend no more than 1.5 minutes per question.

During the exam, candidates could use their own wristwatch or a provided timer to keep track of how long they are spending on a test question. Alternatively, I use the following rule of thumb: If you read the directions twice and still have no idea how to approach the problem, move on and come back to that question later. Additionally, many proctors make announcements, such as “you have 30 minutes left,” during the exam to help test-takers keep track of the time. If you are taking a 100-question test with a 2.5-hour time limit and your proctor announces, “You have 30 minutes left,” you may want to double-check that have completed at least 80 of the test questions to make sure you are good on time.

TIP: The remedy to Mistake #3 mirrors that of Mistake #1. Use the study guide practice test! The practice test is a great way to get used to the exam’s time limit and analyze how long you spend on each test question. After taking the practice exam, target those questions that you either answered incorrectly or spent more than 1.5 minutes trying to solve. Then work on learning some strategies and techniques to approaching those questions that will enable you to answer them faster.

Mistake 4: The candidate who overuses their scratch paper.

Mistake #4 is one of my favorites, because it is one of the most interesting test-taker strategies I’ve noticed to date. I suspect this mistake also has origins in grade school where teachers would heavily caution students on the importance of keeping their Scantrons clean. You may remember instructions such as, “Bubble in your answer completely,” and “Be sure to completely erase your old answers.” The reasoning behind these cautionary warnings was that the Scantron machine could potentially mark your answer as incorrect if the bubble was not filled in properly.

I once reached the end of a 100-question exam and realized that only 99 bubbles were filled in on my answer sheet. I mistakenly missed question #5, which meant that all my other answers were out of order and would have been marked as incorrect by the Scantron machine. I was horrified and didn’t trust my eraser to handle such a task, so I asked for a new answer sheet.

Other test-takers have used a more peculiar strategy to avoid this mistake: They either circle all their answers in the test booklet or write their answers on their scratch paper first, and then go back and fill in all answer bubbles on their Scantron sheet at the end. At first, this seems like a good test strategy, and its even one that I’ve used myself a few times. However, this strategy could create a serious disadvantage for timed tests or even worse, tests with timed sections. You may find that you’ve answered all the questions in the allotted time, but do not have enough time to transfer your answers to your answer sheet. You should also never assume that the proctor will give you extra time to finish filling in your answer sheet.

TIP: Request an extra answer sheet from your proctor and thoroughly check your answers at the end. If you absolutely want to stick with the strategy of transferring answers to your answer sheet at the end, make sure you give yourself at least an additional 5-10 minutes at the end of the exam to do so.

Mistake 5: The candidate who doesn’t address their test anxiety.

Everyone experiences anxiety, stress, and pressure in their lives. Think about how you respond to and cope with stressors in your everyday life. Do you go to therapy? Do you exercise? Do you practice meditation? These are all action-based solutions to coping with general bouts of anxiety and stress.

Test anxiety is a type of anxiety that is specific to testing situations. Under the pressure of achieving a passing score, test-takers can become so anxious and distressed that it inhibits their performance. Those worries, dreads, fears and excessive nervousness can seriously hinder your score.

TIP: First, recognize if you have test anxiety. Educate yourself on the symptoms or indicators of test anxiety and seek professional help if you feel like you need it. If possible, try to identify the cause of your test anxiety. Some strategies you can use include test preparation (study guides!), adequate sleep, and deep breaths (Cherry, 2018). Don’t just accept your test anxiety! Actively try to find ways to help decrease it to improve your strategy.

References

Cherry, K. (n.d.). What Is Test Anxiety? Retrieved January 28, 2019, from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-test-anxiety-2795368

By Yari Randall|2019-01-30T16:19:11-04:00January 28th, 2019|Test Administration|Comments Off

New Customized Exam Policy

IPMA-HR’s Assessment Services Department is pleased to announce our new and improved Customized Exam Policy! The new policy was designed to make the customization process more convenient for customers, while also increasing test security.

New Customized Exam Policy

Agencies that place a customized test order will no longer receive a master copy of the exam, nor will they be required to make copies of the exam for their candidates. The Assessment Services Department will provide up to 20 professional candidate test booklets for no additional charge. If you need more than 20 candidate booklets, the cost is $16 per additional booklet.

IPMA-HR will retain all master copies, answer keys, reading lists, and original customization packets for up to three years. If you would like to reorder a customized exam that was created under this new policy, there is a $97 administration fee to ensure the test questions are up to date and that your reading list is current. You will also be charged $16 per candidate booklet.

Please note that this pricing only applies if no changes or revisions have been made to the previously ordered test. If you want to change or replace any items, you will be charged the standard pricing of $395 labor fee + $10.00 per test question.

How does this affect me?

Agencies that have ordered customized exams prior to the new policy may continue to use their previously received materials (i.e., master copy, answer key, reading list, etc.). However, you should contact the Assessment Services Department before each test administration to make sure there were no updates to the questions on your test and to ensure your reading list is current. If you no longer have your reading list, master copy or answer key and need to request another from the Assessment Services Department, the following rules apply:

For customized exam orders placed under the previous policy in 2015 or later, your exam will need to be rebuilt in order to generate an extra answer key, test, and/or reading list. To update your customized test and bring it in line with the current policy, there will be a flat fee of $395 to rebuild your test. You will receive up to 20 candidate booklets as part of the cost to update the test. Any additional booklets are priced at $16 each. Future orders for this test will be under the standard pricing described above.
For customized exam orders placed prior to 2015, you will need to start an entirely new customized test order.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

By Yari Randall|2018-12-18T16:23:51-04:00December 18th, 2018|Announcements, Products & Services|Comments Off