BUSI 643 Liberty University Interpreting the Reliability Results and Interpreting the Validity Results Worsheet I have a 3 question case study that needs t

BUSI 643 Liberty University Interpreting the Reliability Results and Interpreting the Validity Results Worsheet I have a 3 question case study that needs to be APA7 format, 1 scholar review min page 3- 1. Do individuals making staffing decisions have an ethical responsibility to
know measurement issues? Why or why not?
2. Is it unethical for an employer to use a selection measure that has high empiri-
cal validity but lacks content validity? Explain.
CATIONS
tion of Two New Assessment Methods for Selecting Telephone
ner Service Representatives
The Phonemin Company is a distributor of men’s and women’s casual clothing. It
sells exclusively through its merchandise catalog, which is published four times
per year to coincide with seasonal changes in customers’ apparel tastes. Custom-
ers may order merchandise from the catalog via mail or over the phone. Currently,
70% of orders are phone orders, and the organization expects this to increase to
85% within the next few years.
Staffing Act
362
PART FOUR
success
per-
The success of the organization is obviously very dependent on the
who staff the system. There are currently 185 CSRs; that number should increase
of the telephone ordering system and the customer service representatives (CSRs)
to about 225 CSRs to handle the anticipated growth in phone order sales. Though
the CSRs are trained to use standardized methods and procedures for handling
phone orders, there are still seemingly large differences among them in their job
of order taking, and customer complaints. The top 25% and lowest 25% of
performance. CSR performance is routinely measured in terms of error rate, speed
formers on each of these measures differ by a factor of at least three (i.e., the
Strategically, the organization knows that it could substantially enhance CSR
error rate of the bottom group is three times as high as that of the top group).
performance (and ultimately sales) if it could improve its staffing “batting aver-
age” by more accurately identifying and hiring new CSRs who are likely to be
The current staffing system for CSRs is straightforward. Applicants are recruited
through a combination of employee referrals and newspaper ads. Because turnover
among CSRs is so high (50% annually), recruitment is a continuous process at
for information about education and previous work experience. The information
the organization. Applicants complete a standard application blank, which asks
is reviewed by the staffing specialist in the HR department. Only obvious misfits
are rejected at this point; the others (95%) are asked to have an interview with the
specialist. The interview lasts 20-30 minutes, and at the conclusion the applicant
top performers.
is either rejected or offered a job. Due to the tightness of the labor market and the
constant presence of vacancies to be filled, 90% of the interviewees receive job
offers. Most of those offers (95%) are accepted, and the new hires attend a one-
week training program before being placed on the job.
The organization has decided to investigate the possibilities of increasing CSR
effectiveness through sounder staffing practices. In particular, it is not pleased
with its current methods of assessing job applicants; it feels that neither the appli-
cation blank nor the interview provides an accurate and in-depth assessment of
the applicant KSAOs that are truly needed to be an effective CSR. Consequently,
it engaged the services of a consulting firm that offers various methods of KSAO
assessment, along with validation and installation services. In cooperation with
the HR staffing specialist, the consulting firm conducted the following study for
the organization.
A special job analysis led to the identification of several specific KSAOs likely
to be necessary for successful performance as a CSR. Three of these (clerical
speed, clerical accuracy, and interpersonal skills) were singled out for further com
sideration because of their seemingly high impact on job performance. Two new
methods of assessment provided by the consulting firm were chosen for experi
mentation. The first is a paper-and-pencil clerical test assessing clerical speed and
accuracy. It contains 50 items and has a 30-minute time limit. The second is a brief
work sample that could be administered as part of the interview process. In the work
sample, the applicant must respond to four different phone calls: a customer who is
irate about an out-of-stock item, a customer who wants more product information
about an item than was provided in the catalog, a customer who wants to change
an order placed yesterday, and a customer who has a routine order to place. Using a
1-5 rating scale, the interviewer rates the applicant on tactfulness (T) and concern
for customers (C). The interviewer is provided with a rating manual containing
examples of exceptional (5), average (3), and unacceptable (1) responses by the
applicant.
A random sample of 50 current CSRs were chosen to participate in the study. At
Time 1 they were administered the clerical test and the work sample; performance
data were also gathered from company records for error rate (number of errors per
100 orders), speed (number of orders filled per hour), and customer complaints
(number of complaints per week). At Time 2, one week later, the clerical test and
the work sample were re-administered to the CSRs. A member of the consulting
firm sat in on all the interviews and served as a second rater of performance on the
work sample at Time 1 and Time 2. It is expected that the clerical test and work
sample will have positive correlations with speed and negative correlations with
error rate and customer complaints.
Results for Clerical Test
Time 1
31.61
4.70
.85
Mean score
Standard deviation
Coefficient alpha
Test-retest r
r with error rate
r with speed
r with complaints
r with work sample (T)
r with work sample (C)
Time 2
31.22
5.11
.86
.92*
-.37*
.39*
-.08
-.31*
.41*
-.11
.21
.07
.17
.15
Results for Work Sample (T)
Time 1
Time 2
Mean score
Standard deviation
% agreement (raters)
r with work sample (C)
r with error rate
r with speed
r with complaints
3.15
.93
88%
.81*
-.13
.11
-.37*
3.11
1.01
79%
.77*
-.12
.15
-.35*
Seat
Bay Area
ET FOUR Staffing Activities: Selection
Results for Work Sample (C)
Time 1
2.91
Mean score
Standard deviation
.99
% agreement (raters)
80%
r with work sample (T)
.81*
r with error rate
-.04
r with speed
.15
r with complaints
-.40*
(Note: * means that r was significant at p
Purchase answer to see full
attachment