Employment testing and human resource management

ARTICLE EVALUATION: Employment Testing and Human Resource Management.
Abstract.
In their article, Employment Testing and Human Resource Management, C. O. Ajila and Linus Okafor give a detailed and informative account of employment testing. However, the relevance of such testing in Human Resource Management is given only superficial treatment.
ARTICLE EVALUATION: Employment Testing and Human Resource Management.
In their article, Employment Testing and Human Resource Management, C. O. Ajila and Linus Okafor explore the historical antecedents of psychological testing, basic testing concepts, the types of tests used in industry, and the relevance of these tests in the field of Human Resource Management. While Ajila and Okafor give a detailed and informative account of employment testing, the relevance of such testing in Human Resource Management is given only superficial treatment.
Ajila and Okafor define Human Resources Management, its objective in matching organizational goals with employee skills, and the use of employment testing as a step in any “ comprehensive screening program” (Ajila and Okafor, 2012, 91). The authors present an in-depth account of the origin and nature of employment testing, beginning with its roots in the tests of Francis Galton in 1883, and its evolution over the decades: from Alfred Binet’s scales, the Stanford-Binet test, and the Army Tests used in World War I. Ajila and Okafor go on to define psychological tests, and analyze employment testing in terms of validity and reliability. As personnel selection is one of the most significant features of Human Resource Management, the authors explore validity (accuracy, legitimacy) and reliability (dependability or consistency) in terms of measures used to assess the “ attributes related to success on the job” (Ajila and Okafor, 2012, 91). The authors give a comprehensive report of the various types of tests used in personnel screening and selection, based on cognitive ability, mechanical ability, motor and sensory ability, aptitude, personality and knowledge. By providing examples of each kind of test, the authors further elucidate the nature of employment testing and the purpose and use of the different tests. Ajila and Okofor conclude with the unequivocal assertion that employment testing should definitely be a part of the process of personnel selection.
While the authors give a commendably detailed analysis of the history of psychological testing, and a comprehensive list of the types of tests, the article does not make a strong enough case for the inclusion of such testing in the personnel selection process. Ajila and Okofor do not quote any studies or research to back their stand that employment testing is a reliable and valid method of personnel selection. The authors state that “ The goal of personnel selection is to predict how individuals will do on the job” (Ajila and Okafor, 2012, 94). However, they fail to provide any evidence that the use of employment testing accurately predicts future job performance, and increases the profitability of a company. They list the different psychological tests, with examples, and the qualities and characteristics they measure, but do not quote any studies linking such traits to successful job performance. The author’s rather ambiguous assertion that “ Certain tests in each of these areas may show definite relation with job success” (Ajila and Okafor, 2012, 94), leaves the reader with the lingering doubt that these employment tests ‘ may, or may not’ be accurate predictors of successful job performance. Ajila and Okofor fail to conclusively link psychological employment testing with accurate prediction of job performance. By ignoring this aspect, their case for the inclusion of employment testing in the personnel selection process is considerably weakened.
Employment Testing and Human Resource Management is a fairly exhaustive article on the origins of psychological testing, basic testing concepts, characteristics of a test, and the various tests and the traits they measure. However, the failure of the authors, C. O. Ajila and Linus Okafor, to provide concrete evidence to bolster their stand that employment testing should be an essential part of the personnel selection process, detracts from the value of the article. In an aside, it must also be noted that the article could have benefited from a stricter editing of typographical and grammatical errors. At the end, the reader is left with a sense of incomplete treatment of the subject.

References.
Ajila, C. O. and Okafor, Linus. (2012). Employment Testing and Human Resource Management.
Expert Notes: ABC of Psychology, 2012. 91-98.