Respond to the following questions:
Many organizations use multiple tests or assessments in their selection plan. There are essentially two approaches to evaluating candidates using multiple assessments: the multiple hurdle approach and a compensatory model.
First, passing or “cut” scores need to be set for each test or assessment. These can be set high or low, depending on whether you’d rather hire:
More people who are less qualified – with a cut score of 60% or higher, most people will probably pass the test.
Fewer people who are more qualified – with a cut score of 90% or higher, few people will probably pass the test.
Alpha or Beta errors are also a factor
In a multiple hurdle approach, candidates are “knocked out” of the selection process after every given step. Say you ask candidates to take 1) an integrity test, 2) a job knowledge test and 3) a personality test, in that order. If Candidate A fails to achieve the cut score on the integrity test (say you’ll only consider those who score at or above 85% and she scores 77%), there is no need for her to advance to the next test; she is out of consideration. If Candidate B passes the first 2 tests, but fails the personality test, he advanced further, but is still out of consideration.
In a compensatory model, candidates are allowed to take all of the tests, either simultaneously or in order. No decision is made to eliminate any candidate until all tests have been taken. Often, a composite score is created, weighing and combining scores from each test. Thus if Candidate C does well on the integrity test and the job knowledge test, but poorly on the personality test, the better scores can compensate for the worse score.
Provide a concrete example of when and why you would choose to use a multiple hurdle approach or a compensatory model. How could these approaches be combined?
