Validate hiring tests: 4 checks for small staffing firms

To validate hiring tests, start with a job analysis, choose a fitting strategy, keep subgroup records, and match each test to its validity limits.

Key takeaways for how to validate hiring tests for small staffing firms

Office of Personnel Management](https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/assessment-and-selection/), job analysis identifies the duties performed on the job and the competencies needed for effective job performance. - Select a feasible strategy: the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states a user should select a validation strategy appropriate for the type of selection procedure, the job, and the employment situation, and technically and administratively feasible, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. - Keep records by subgroup: the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notes that although federal agencies have decided not to require computations of adverse impact by subgroups, the Guidelines call for record keeping which allows identification of persons by sex, combined with race or ethnic group, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. - Content validity has limits: the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states the Guidelines note content validity is not an appropriate strategy for knowledge, skills, or abilities an employee "will be expected to learn on the job," but nothing suggests content validity is inappropriate for determining what the employee has learned on the job or in a training program, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Validating hiring tests requires a systematic approach

For a small staffing firm, defensible screening starts with a defined process rather than a single test. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, effective personnel assessment involves a systematic approach towards gathering information about applicants' job qualifications. That means every step—from defining the role to scoring applicants—should follow a documented method you can explain if an applicant or agency asks.

The first step in that system is job analysis. Before you choose any assessment, write down what the person actually does each day and which skills separate strong performers from weak ones. Review your current job descriptions to ensure they list the specific duties and competencies identified in a recent job analysis. Our guide to job description sections shows how to lay those out.

Reference table of validation sources

The table below collects the four main sources you will cite when you document how your screening tools were built and checked. Each row names the publisher, the guidance that publisher actually states, and the page where that guidance lives.

Keep this table with your validation file so each assessment you run can be traced back to the publisher that supports the step you took.

Start with a rigorous job analysis

Begin by documenting what the job actually requires before you pick any screening tool. That definition gives you the two things your assessment must connect to: the tasks someone will do and the abilities they need to do them well.

The Job Accommodation Network describes the practical steps for getting that information. According to the Job Accommodation Network, these steps include completing a job analysis, recording the basic purpose and functions of the job, and detailing necessary qualifications. So your output is a written record, not a mental note: the job's purpose, its functions, and the qualifications tied to them.

To gather that record, treat the analysis as fieldwork rather than a desk exercise. According to the Job Accommodation Network, a job analysis is an investigative process that involves observing an individual who is actually doing a job, observing co-workers, interviewing the worker, and interviewing co-workers. For a small staffing firm, that means watching a placement on site when you can, talking to the person in the role, and checking the same details with the people around them.

A practical approach for a small team: pick one or two current placements in a role you staff regularly, observe the work, and interview both the worker and a supervisor. Record the purpose, functions, and qualifications in a short document. That document becomes the reference point for every test, interview question, or scorecard you use later. Tracing each screening tool back to a duty or competency in that record is a sound practice.

Choose an assessment strategy that fits the job

Once your job analysis identifies the essential duties, the next move is turning that information into a screening tool. According to U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the second step is to use the information gathered from the job analysis to create an assessment used to screen or assess applicants, with the occupational questionnaire as a popular option.

Before you commit to any single format, remember that not all assessment tools are appropriate for every job and organizational setting, according to U.S. Office of Personnel Management. A skills test that works for a warehouse coordinator may be useless for a medical receptionist, even within the same staffing firm.

The selection of a strategy is not a casual choice. According to U.S. Office of Personnel Management, agencies must consider a number of factors in determining the most appropriate assessment strategy for a particular situation. That language matters for your own process: document which factors you weighed and why the chosen tool fit the role.

The EEOC frames the same discipline as a two-part test. According to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a user should select a validation strategy or strategies which are appropriate for the type of selection procedure, the job, and the employment situation, and technically and administratively feasible.

Practical takeaway for a small firm: match the tool to the role, and match the validation effort to your resources. Write down the factors you considered, the alternatives you rejected, and the reason the chosen assessment fits both the job and your firm's capacity to administer it fairly. Once a tool is chosen, a structured form such as the Interview Scorecard Example for Consistent Hiring Teams can help you apply it the same way each time.

Monitor for adverse impact using record-keeping

Your record-keeping is what makes adverse impact detectable. According to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, although the Federal agencies have decided not to require computations of adverse impact by subgroups (white males, black males, white females, black females—see Question 17), the Guidelines call for record keeping which allows identification of persons by sex, combined with race or ethnic group, so as to permit the identification of discriminatory practices on any such basis.

Set up your applicant tracking so every record can be sorted by sex combined with race or ethnic group. Keep the records in a form that lets you run the comparison when you need it, not just when a charge arrives. For more on checking hiring tests for impact, see our guide to the eighty percent rule for hiring tests.

The score comparison itself is straightforward once you have the data. According to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for example, if members of one group have an average score of 40 on the selection procedure, but perform on the job as well as another group which has an average score of 50, then some uses of the selection procedure would be unfair to the members of the lower scoring group.

That example is an illustration of unfairness, not a legal threshold. Use it as a pattern for your own comparison: compare average scores between groups, then check whether the lower-scoring group performs on the job as well as the higher-scoring group. If it does, the test use may be unfair to the lower-scoring group.

The information collection on impact also has an approval number. According to Legal Information Institute, it is approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3046-0017. Keep that control number on hand when you document your record-keeping process, since it identifies the approved information collection for impact data.

Distinguish between content and construct validity

Content validity has limits. According to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, when a job analysis does not show that reading instructions faster or understanding more complex material would likely lead to better job performance, a reading test supported by content validity alone should be used on a pass/fail rather than a ranking basis.

That distinction matters for how you score. If your content-valid test only shows that someone can do the task, ranking applicants by finer score differences may not be defensible. Use the test to screen in or out, not to order applicants, unless you have additional evidence connecting higher scores to better performance.

Illustrative example: pass/fail screening

Suppose a firm gives a reading test to 10 applicants. Its job analysis shows the job requires reading instructions, but not reading them faster or understanding more complex material. Because the test rests on content validity alone, the firm uses it on a pass/fail basis. Six applicants pass. The firm treats those 6 as equally eligible on this test rather than ranking them by score, and looks to other documented job-related evidence to choose among them. The numbers are illustrative only.

Content validity also has a specific boundary around on-the-job learning. According to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Guidelines note that content validity is not an appropriate strategy for knowledges, skills or abilities which an employee "will be expected to learn on the job", but nothing in the Guidelines suggests that a test supported by content validity is not appropriate for determining what the employee has learned on the job, or in a training program. So you can use a content-valid test to check whether an applicant has already mastered a skill, even if that skill was learned through prior work experience or training rather than in a classroom.

Construct validity is a different path. According to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in view of the developing nature of construct validation for employment selection procedures, the approach taken concerning the generalizability of construct validity (section 14D) is intended to be a cautious one. Treat any claim that a test measures an abstract trait like "leadership" or "cognitive ability" as requiring more evidence before you rely on it for hiring decisions.

Your next step today

Take one job you staff frequently and complete a job analysis for it this week, recording the duties and competencies you observe.

FAQ on validating hiring tests for small staffing firms

What is the first step in creating a valid assessment tool?

The first step is a job analysis, which identifies the duties performed on the job and the competencies needed for effective job performance.

How do you determine if a test has an adverse impact on a group?

Start by keeping records that identify applicants by sex combined with race or ethnic group, so discriminatory practices can be identified. The EEOC's example is a group averaging 40 and another averaging 50 who perform equally on the job, which makes some uses of the test unfair to the lower scoring group.

Is content validity appropriate for skills learned on the job?

It is not appropriate for skills an employee "will be expected to learn on the job," but it can be appropriate for determining what the employee has already learned on the job or in a training program.

Why might a test be considered a pretext for discrimination?

A test may be seen as a pretext when other tests would serve the employer's interest without a similarly undesirable racial effect. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, even where job relatedness has been proven, the availability of other tests or selection devices which would also serve the employer's legitimate interest in "efficient and trustworthy workmanship" without a similarly undesirable racial effect would be evidence that the employer was using its tests merely as a pretext for discrimination.