自愿认证和选拔程序统一准则:人事管理人员的一个潜在问题

Steven K. Bryant
{"title":"自愿认证和选拔程序统一准则:人事管理人员的一个潜在问题","authors":"Steven K. Bryant","doi":"10.1016/0165-2281(81)90012-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Employers in health care sometimes rely upon various standardized testing procedures in selecting, promoting, and training personnel. Within the health professions, voluntary certification programs have developed to permit individuals to demonstrate competence and become recognized as qualified practitioners. This article addresses the problems which can occur, but are not widely recognized, when employers use voluntary certification examinations in the selection process.</p><p>The impact of the federal government's “Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures” upon voluntary certification activities is uncertain at best, and frightening, at worst. While the Guidelines require employers to use only validated examinations where adverse impact upon protected minority groups exists, they do not effectively address the use of professional certifying examinations and fail to provide guidance for either certifying agencies or employers. This leaves great potential for conflict, since circumstances in which employment is terminated, an employee denied promotion, or even denied opportunities for entry into positions based on an employer's use of voluntary certifying examinations, are increasing daily. How does an employer validate a national certifying examination that he does not administer? How does the certifying agency protect itself from allegations of discrimination or anti-trust violations based on actions of an employer with whom the agency has no contact?</p><p>This article offers no answers to these troublesome questions. However, it may help eliminate another problem noted by the author — widespread ignorance of the seriousness of these circumstances for employers and certifying agencies. From first-hand experience and research into the development of the Uniform Guidelines, the author points out many of the difficulties which await those who rely on non-validated examinations or choose to ignore the government's edict that examinations used in selection must have a demonstrated relationship to the job. Finally, the article proposes solutions to the dilemma faced by certifying organizations and suggests that, by becoming more aware of the Uniform Guidelines, employers and testing groups have the opportunity to protect themselves before a problem occurs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":79937,"journal":{"name":"Health policy and education","volume":"2 2","pages":"Pages 135-152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1981-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0165-2281(81)90012-6","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Voluntary certification and the Uniform Guidelines on Selection Procedures: A potential problem for personnel managers\",\"authors\":\"Steven K. Bryant\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/0165-2281(81)90012-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Employers in health care sometimes rely upon various standardized testing procedures in selecting, promoting, and training personnel. Within the health professions, voluntary certification programs have developed to permit individuals to demonstrate competence and become recognized as qualified practitioners. This article addresses the problems which can occur, but are not widely recognized, when employers use voluntary certification examinations in the selection process.</p><p>The impact of the federal government's “Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures” upon voluntary certification activities is uncertain at best, and frightening, at worst. While the Guidelines require employers to use only validated examinations where adverse impact upon protected minority groups exists, they do not effectively address the use of professional certifying examinations and fail to provide guidance for either certifying agencies or employers. This leaves great potential for conflict, since circumstances in which employment is terminated, an employee denied promotion, or even denied opportunities for entry into positions based on an employer's use of voluntary certifying examinations, are increasing daily. How does an employer validate a national certifying examination that he does not administer? How does the certifying agency protect itself from allegations of discrimination or anti-trust violations based on actions of an employer with whom the agency has no contact?</p><p>This article offers no answers to these troublesome questions. However, it may help eliminate another problem noted by the author — widespread ignorance of the seriousness of these circumstances for employers and certifying agencies. From first-hand experience and research into the development of the Uniform Guidelines, the author points out many of the difficulties which await those who rely on non-validated examinations or choose to ignore the government's edict that examinations used in selection must have a demonstrated relationship to the job. Finally, the article proposes solutions to the dilemma faced by certifying organizations and suggests that, by becoming more aware of the Uniform Guidelines, employers and testing groups have the opportunity to protect themselves before a problem occurs.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health policy and education\",\"volume\":\"2 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 135-152\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1981-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0165-2281(81)90012-6\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health policy and education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0165228181900126\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health policy and education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0165228181900126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

医疗保健行业的雇主有时依靠各种标准化的测试程序来选择、提升和培训人员。在卫生专业领域,自愿认证项目已经发展起来,允许个人证明自己的能力,成为公认的合格从业人员。本文讨论了当雇主在选择过程中采用自愿认证考试时可能发生但尚未得到广泛认识的问题。联邦政府的“雇员选拔程序统一指导方针”对自愿认证活动的影响往好了说是不确定的,往坏了说是可怕的。虽然《准则》要求雇主只在对受保护的少数群体产生不利影响的情况下使用有效的考试,但它们没有有效地解决专业认证考试的使用问题,也没有为认证机构或雇主提供指导。这给冲突留下了很大的可能性,因为由于雇主采用自愿认证考试而终止雇佣、拒绝雇员晋升、甚至拒绝进入职位的机会的情况与日俱增。雇主如何使他没有管理的国家认证考试有效?认证机构如何保护自己免受因与认证机构没有联系的雇主的行为而受到歧视或违反反垄断法的指控?这篇文章对这些棘手的问题没有提供答案。然而,它可能有助于消除作者指出的另一个问题- -雇主和认证机构普遍忽视这些情况的严重性。根据第一手经验和对统一指导方针发展的研究,作者指出了许多困难等待着那些依赖未经验证的考试或选择忽视政府的法令,即在选拔中使用的考试必须与工作有明确的关系。最后,文章提出了解决认证组织所面临的困境的方法,并建议,通过提高对统一准则的认识,雇主和测试团体有机会在问题发生之前保护自己。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Voluntary certification and the Uniform Guidelines on Selection Procedures: A potential problem for personnel managers

Employers in health care sometimes rely upon various standardized testing procedures in selecting, promoting, and training personnel. Within the health professions, voluntary certification programs have developed to permit individuals to demonstrate competence and become recognized as qualified practitioners. This article addresses the problems which can occur, but are not widely recognized, when employers use voluntary certification examinations in the selection process.

The impact of the federal government's “Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures” upon voluntary certification activities is uncertain at best, and frightening, at worst. While the Guidelines require employers to use only validated examinations where adverse impact upon protected minority groups exists, they do not effectively address the use of professional certifying examinations and fail to provide guidance for either certifying agencies or employers. This leaves great potential for conflict, since circumstances in which employment is terminated, an employee denied promotion, or even denied opportunities for entry into positions based on an employer's use of voluntary certifying examinations, are increasing daily. How does an employer validate a national certifying examination that he does not administer? How does the certifying agency protect itself from allegations of discrimination or anti-trust violations based on actions of an employer with whom the agency has no contact?

This article offers no answers to these troublesome questions. However, it may help eliminate another problem noted by the author — widespread ignorance of the seriousness of these circumstances for employers and certifying agencies. From first-hand experience and research into the development of the Uniform Guidelines, the author points out many of the difficulties which await those who rely on non-validated examinations or choose to ignore the government's edict that examinations used in selection must have a demonstrated relationship to the job. Finally, the article proposes solutions to the dilemma faced by certifying organizations and suggests that, by becoming more aware of the Uniform Guidelines, employers and testing groups have the opportunity to protect themselves before a problem occurs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信