Since created in 1967, there has never been an adverse finding against any employer for using the Achiever System, nor any out-of-court settlement.
Legality: The Achiever is the updated assessment previously titled The Profile. It was developed and validated by Purdue University's James E. Moore, Ph.D., along with other prominent psychologists, for the Communications Institute of America of Dallas, known today as Candidate Resources Inc. (CRI). Subsequently, the technical expertise of the following professionals have made the assessment what it is today: Mr. Roger Pryor, Master of Psychology; Dr. Max Fogel, Licensed Clinical Psychologist, Ph.D., University of Iowa, Senior Medical Research Scientist, Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, Associate Professor in Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania; Dr. Stanley Abrams, psychologist and medical doctor known for his work with the Kaiser Foundation, his research in polygraphy, and in his book, "The Legal Basis of Polygraphy."
Created in 1967, the published assessment was first utilized in conjunction with other known tests. Later, Dr. Moore directed assessments of people to compile construct validation. The instrument was then updated and again revalidated in 1972 and consistently ever since.
Candidate Resources built the first test to debut in America that measures mental aptitudes critical to any job, behavioral traits that were purely job-related, and validity scales all in one instrument. Prior to the instrument's creation, there were no purely job-related tests that contained a measurement of aptitudes, behaviors and validity scales in the same instrument. Today the test they developed is known as the Achiever. All other similar tests are derivatives of the Achiever and various other organizations today pay royalties for use of CRI's technology and copyrights.
CRI's assessments, i.e., the Achiever family and corresponding aptitude assessment tests, are constructed and validated to be job-related assessments, and do not contain psychologically-oriented questions to identify abnormal behavior problems and their degree. The questions on these assessments are solely job-related and responses are directly aligned to job performance.
Neither the E.E.O.C., the Department of Labor, nor any other government agency has the right to approve any employment testing or employment procedure. The extent of their authority is to audit or investigate unacceptable procedures, which have resulted in or are resulting in discrimination.
On numerous occasions, the FDIC has audited banks using the Achiever assessment system. In each case, the system has always passed with flying colors. The same is true with OFCC audits of federal contractor clients. The Dallas district office of the EEOC and other EEOC offices across the country are acquainted with CRI's assessment systems. To date, there has never been an adverse finding against any employer for using the Achiever system, nor any out-of-court settlement.
The Achiever was reviewed by Mr. Charles E. Duffy, District Director of U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs; 55 Erieview Plaza, Suite 520, Cleveland, Ohio 44114; 215-522-7380, who commented "there is no need to have the Achiever validated within each company since there is only a slight possibility of any adverse effect on a protected group, particularly since there are no passing or failing scores yielded by the Achiever". Nevertheless, the Achiever is validated through the construct validation process and concurrent validations are continuously in progress on an ongoing basis.
Utilizing the Achiever properly ensures protection against E.E.O.C. problems and adverse impact. When the Achiever is properly implemented and utilized in conjunction with other standard hiring and interviewing procedures, it strengthens the employers' position of taking affirmative action to ensure that applicants and employees are treated fairly without regard to race, color, age, religion, sex or national origin.
CRI, Inc., since 1967, has provided assessments for applicant selection, employee training and development, and career enhancement to thousands of companies across the United States and in five other countries.
CRI will defend its assessments and their validation, provided they are used in accordance with our recommended procedures.
Statistics indicate that people well suited for their work in aptitude and temperament enjoy their work more...and are more productive than unsuited individuals. Validated tests are the most accurate of all selection techniques! Resumes can be falsified, interviews very biased (and illegal at times), and references highly opinionated or incomplete. Professionally developed job tests that are validated against objective performance standards will significantly "out-predict" all other selection techniques.
The Achiever has been established and validated in accordance with the procedures described in "Standards of Educational Psychological Tests and Manuals," which is referred to in paragraph (2) 1607.6, "Minimum Standards for Evaluation," Federal Register Volume 35, dated Saturday, August 1, 1970. It is therefore not discriminatory and is in compliance with E.E.O.C. and other Federal Regulations.
The Reliability and Validity Manual published by CRI, Inc., establishes the legal and written confirmation that this evaluation was professionally developed and validated in accordance with both Construct and Criterion methods of validation. CRI, Inc., will defend the validation or content of the Achiever for any company using this assessment, but cannot assist any company as a result of the misuse or abuse of the Achiever.
There are four forms of validity:
CONSTRUCT refers to the extent in which dimensions with similar names on different tests relate to one another. Two things that correlate highly are not necessarily identical, but do provide reassurance that they are related and are a "construct" or part of the makeup (like honesty, dependability, sociability, etc.) of an individual as related to actual job performance.
CONCURRENT is that approach whereby people who are successful within a given job within a given company or industry, are evaluated and generally grouped TOP THIRD, MIDDLE THIRD, BOTTOM THIRD. The assessment scores of the people who fit each of these ranges are then compiled and Job Benchmark Standards of the TOP THIRD are used to hire, train or manage.
PREDICTIVE occurs when the employer hires people for a position based on normal hiring procedures (interviewing, reference checks, education/experience, etc.) and at the same time has them complete the assessment, but does not utilize any data from it in the hiring decision. Within six months, or any appropriate period of time later, the assessment is scored, and benchmarks established on the people who are still with the employer, and whom the employer considers successful. Job Benchmark Standards are thus established through the Predictive approach.
CONTENT represents job function testing, i.e., typing, mathematics, design, CPA exams, physical work endurance, etc. Content validation is not the method utilized by CRI, Inc., since we do not provide content assessments to the marketplace.
CRI, recommends that an organization establish and utilize a consistent standard hiring process when making hiring decisions. Information should be gathered in each step of the standard hiring process to have specific and measurable data to utilize in making a final hiring decision. The assessment used by the Achiever family of tests should count no more than one-third of the hiring decisions. The preliminary interview, job history check, in-depth interview results and evaluation of education, experience and other pertinent factors should be considered as well.
Under the Uniform Federal Guidelines adopted in the 1970's, validation of any part of the hiring process (assessments included) was no longer deemed necessary unless a company was not meeting the 4/5th Rule in either hiring or promotional practices. Consequently, there are three optional approaches to using test assessments:
The in-depth validation identified above is not necessary from a legal perspective if you are in compliance with the 4/5th Rule described below. This rule was designated by the E.E.O.C. as a computation tool to establish a basis to show whether or not a company is having an adverse impact in their hiring practices.
EXAMPLE: Out of 120 job applicants (comprised of 80 white and 40 minority), 48 whites were hired and 12 minorities were hired.
48 out of 80 white applicants = 60%
12 out of 40 minority applicants = 30%
This hiring pattern results in adverse selection of minorities, since 1/2 as many minorities are hired as whites (or 30/60), whereas the hiring ratio must equal 4/5th as many minorities as whites.