EEO/USE OF PROFESSIONAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY (PATB)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00357R000900010032-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 27, 2001
• Sequence Number: 32
• Publication Date: December 6, 1976
• Content Type: MF

Approved, Fo elease 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82-003 0009000100 -1=- - e
OGC Has Reviewed
STATINTL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
STATINTL FROM
SUBJECT : EEO/Use of Professional Aptitude Test Battery (PATB)
1. This is in response to your question whether the recommendations
proposed in the 24 November 1976 memorandum of the DCI/EEO Advisory
Panel to the DDCI are dictated by legal requirements. The Panel makes several
recommendations concerning the Agency's use of the PATB: deemphasize its
predictive qualities; place the sole responsibility for determining suitability
for Agency-wide professional employment with the hiring official; develop
guidelines at the component level for the use of the PATB; and indicate what
ability measures the guidelines would discuss for each unit.
It is the opinion of this Office that there are no legal requirements or
impediments to the adoption of the recommendations, and that their adoption.
i:i a matter of administrative discretion. I would advise, however. that some
clarification of the recormendations is needed before implementation. _
2. By way of background, it must be said that the PATB and similar
tests must be job related in order to withstand the scrutiny of a Title VII
inquiry. Gres v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424, 91 S. Ct. 849,.
28 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1971). Griggs held that tests for employment must indicate
a reasonable measure of job performance. The three basic methods of validating
such tests for their relationship to job performance are:
Criterion, or empirical, validation involves proving that
the abilities, interests, and knowledge measured by the test are
directly related to job performance. This would correlate an
individual's performance on test and job; that is, how well its
predictions agree with subsequent outcomes.
Construct validation measures the degree to which job
applicants have identifiable characteristics that have been deter-
miricd desirable for successful job performance. ' ere there is no
single criterion; many are required to confirm what the test does
and dtoes not Measure.
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82-00357R000900010032-1
 Approved. Fq Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82-0035i7,Gt000900010032-1
Content validity is established by demonstrating that the test
approximates the specific knowledge, skills, and behaviors to be
performed on the job by the applicant. Content validation is relevant
for achievement testing.
3. The most recent Supreme Court decision on this topic, Washington
v. Davis, U.S. 96 S. Ct. 48 I.. Ed. 2d 597, 612 (1976), held that
a test which measures likelihood of success in a police training program satifiec?
Griffis, and stated: "[i] t appears beyond doubt by now that there is no single
method for appropriately validating employment tests for their. relationship to
job performance." The Court indicated that the three basic methods are accepted
by the American Psychological Association in its Standards for Educational and
Psychological Tests and Manuals, but expressed no preference. The Civil Service
Commission Guidelines at 41 Federal Register 51752, dated ?23 November 1976,
recently promulgated by the Commission after coordination with the Labor and
Justice departments, adopt these same validation methods . Any attempt at
revising present Agency practice, emphasis, and use of PVTB should certainly
be made only after a careful consideration of these Guidelines (see attachment) .
4. For example, careful analysis might reveal at what level within the
Agency the review and interpretation of PATE analyses should be made, what
criteria the Agency guidelines should establish, and what information the
analyses should contain. Neither Grigg nor subsequent cases would demand a
particular approach. It must be clearly ascertained what validation method is
to be adopted, over how broad a base it is to be applied, and who is a "unit
supervisor" to review and interpret results. Whether the determination of
suitability should be "the sole responsibility of the hiring official" is not a legal
issue,. but should be carefully considered if it would alter current practice.
5. The recommendation " [n] o 'statement should be made concerning
suitability or non-suitability for Agency-wide professional employment" is
an interesting one, but not required under the new guidelines., Selection
procedures may be used to predict the performance of candidates for a job
which is at a higher level.than the job for which the person is initially being
selected if a majority of the individuals who remain employed will progress to
the higher level within a reasonable period of time. Naturally, this is a
difficult test, and one which should be clearly documented; but while this
approach could subject the Agency to charges of elitism, the alternative could
overly restrict mobility of employees and their utility to the Agency. Careful
consideration must be given because proving job relatedness becomes more
difficult when the test is.used to determine subsequent rather than initial job
duties .
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA.RDP82-00357R000900010032-1
 Approved FQ Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82-00354R000900010032-1
6. I raise these questions because of the complexity of Lae subject
matter and the uncertainty as to which selection procedures or validation
method the EEO Panel would recommend, if any. Deemphasis of the as odic"f. e
qualities of the PATB as recommended suggests that a content ?; alidity (e.. c-. ,
achievement test) approach would be used, but there still seems to be a focus
by the Panel on the construct approach as evidenced by the psychological
testing guidelines proposed. The utility of one approach over the other is
a matter for psychologists and managers, but either could be legally permissible.
7. Finally, greater use of a PATB analysis as a placement tool could .
result in a departure from presumably objective selection procedures and
a greater reliance on personal interviews. Such procedures are notoriously
subjective and often too unreliable a way of assessing a job candidate. Thus,
ironically, relying less upon the PATB could actually make it easier to discrimi-
nate.
8. In conclusion, there is no legal requirement imposed by statute or
case law that these proposals be adopted; nor are there any legal impediments
to their implementation. Nevertheless, their merits must be carefully weighed,
and legal considerations could arise at a later date regardless of whether they
are adopted. I would be happy to provide further comments or assistance in this
regard if necessary.
. STATINTL
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82-00357R000900010032-1