Reference no: EM13524440

 TRUE/FALSE Questions

 1. The UGESP addresses the need to determine if a selection procedure is causing adverse impact, and if so, the validation requirements for the procedure. 

2. A medical examination for employees is defined the same way as for job applicants. 

3. Any selection procedure that has an adverse impact is deemed discriminatory by the UGESP unless it has been shown to be valid. 

4. The three types of validity studies considered acceptable by the UGESP include face validity, construct validity, and administrative validity. 

5. It is unlawful to screen out individuals with disabilities, unless the selection procedure is job-related and consistent with business necessity. 

 6. An organization may not require medical exams of an applicant, nor make a job offer conditional, pending the results of a medical exam. 

7. There are some jobs for which drug and alcohol testing is mandated by law. 

8. Records for medical exams of established employees must be kept in relative confidence, although most jurisdictions allow for this information to be shared with supervisors and members of the work group if the employer deems it wise.

9. Experience refers to length of service or tenure with a job, department or organization. 

10. Seniority and experience are among the most prevalent methods of internal selection. 

11. Seniority is a highly valid method for internal selection. 

12. Organizations find that talent management systems are low cost and require little expertise. 

13. A virtue of peer assessments is that they rely on raters who are very knowledgeable of applicants' KSAOs.  

14. A different set of criteria are used to evaluate the effectiveness of internal assessment methods, since concepts like validity and adverse impact are unimportant for internal hiring. 

15. The validity of experience is higher than seniority for internal selection.  

16. Experience is better suited to predict long-term rather than short-term potential. 

17. Job knowledge tests hold great promise as a predictor of job performance.  

18. One advance over the simple use of performance ratings is to review past performance records more thoroughly, including an evaluation of various dimensions of performance that are particularly relevant to job performance.  

19. The argument behind the Peter Principle is that individuals who are good performers in one job will probably be good performers in the next job up the promotion ladder. 

20. In using performance appraisals to predict the performance of an individual being considered for promotion from a junior to a senior level position, it would be appropriate to use the results of performance appraisals for a junior-level technical position to make a selection decision concerning a promotion to a senior level managerial position.