The federal government continues to rely on candidate assessment practices that are not good predictors of job performance, such as training and experience assessments, MSPB has said.
It said that granting credit to an applicant for holding a particular job rather than for the actual skills exhibited while in that job does not necessarily predict job performance.
Better predictors include cognitive ability tests that measure reasoning abilities and that can be used at all job levels. Because of their low cost, tests like these could be used for high volume positions, according to MSPB.
However, it said they should also be combined with non-cognitive assessments and by themselves are not ideal predictors — though they are appropriate for high volume, mission critical positions.
Structured interviews are also preferable to unstructured interviews, which may put too much weight on first impressions and behavior rather than on qualifications, and they are less consistent across an array of candidates, MSPB said.
It also recommended that agencies validate candidate qualifications with reference checks because they are simple, cheap and effective.
Further, the probationary period of federal employment is perhaps the greatest indicator of all in terms of predicting future job performance and is perhaps underused. Few managers report using it to weed out underperforming employees.
