To paraphrase a trite expression, a funny thing happened after I left the civilian personnel office. It started perhaps with a casual remark, followed by conversations, phone calls, misinterpretations, misunderstandings, assumptions, or what have you. At any rate, less than thirty-two hours later I received a seething oral reprimand for "telling my Congressman (you) that I had never been told of the CSSB test and its purpose." Before I could get an explanation in edgewise, I was also told of the "troublesome letters of explanation that would be required to answer the Congressman's inquiry to my complaint." My supervisor's reasoning (evaluated and measure, no doubt) was mere assumption or el-e he was sadly misinformed, for the statement I made to you was that "I cannot be considered for promotion only because I choose not to take the CSSB test." With an explanation on my part and considerable backtracking on the part of others, the facts were then obvious and the confusion was soon smoothed out, complete with an open-shop apology. Other than my being scapegoat for a day, the entire matter is hushed-up and employer-employee relations are again quasi-copesetie, if not better. I have no grievance, it's just that I'd like you to realize the sudden and unjust consequences that can evolve whenever a layman "writes his congressman", and sometimes even if suspected of having written. This is why many laymen, while well versed in the technicalities of their trade, will not write to their congressman and chance becoming enmeshed in the unfamiliar semantics of officialdom. I'd think there could be a ruling whereby a layman could be given the opportunity to reword his first-time complaints before any charges, especially retaliatory, could be imposed. Even my misuse of "personality test" is still cause for an uneasy night's sleep. While "drives" have eased off considerably within the past year, I am still reminded of a 16- by 24-inch sign that was posted on our shop bulletin board March 10, 1965, which read: “Squadron will no longer be required to furnish KP's--IF you help us to meet our Red Cross drive quota of $830.00. $300.00 more to go." And nearby, as if an afterthought, was a smaller sign which exploited this suggestion: "Those who contribute $2.50 will be given a three-day pass.” Though directed to the military, the message got across to the embittered civilian workers as well. Extortion? Since Senator Hiram L. Fong of Hawaii is on your committee, here's a little suggestion for idle conversation-the application of a couple of 50th-State words for space-age lingo. The two words, common to Hawaii, are (1) mauka, which means "inland direction" and which could symoblize "earthward", and (2) makei, meaning "seaward direction," which could be synonymous with "spaceward". I'm sorry if my correspondence has caused any undue inconveniences or misunderstandings. After following articles on your bill, writing to express approval was the least I could do since I couldn't shake your hand. And thanks for the copy of your bill. Reading it over leaves me with this "modest" thought: I couldn't have drawn up a better one, myself. Again, thank you, and may your efforts be rewarded with good fortune. Very truly yours, [Enclosure] The Air Force, which has an acute civilian shortage in crafts and artisan jobs. has been giving a learner ability test to some of its unskilled blue-collar workers to determine if they could qualify for training to become carpenters, plumbers, painters, and mechanics. The last question on the test asks, "Who is the composer of 'Madame Butterfly?'" CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO PERSONALITY TESTS Hon. JOHN W. MACY, Jr., SEPTEMBER 14, 1966. DEAR MR. MACY: In connection with its study of privacy and the rights of government employees, the Subcommittee has received the enclosed complaint. We should appreciate receiving a copy of the CSSB personality test and a description of how and why it is used. Would you also tell the Subcommittee whether there are any deviations from your policy statement to us in June, 1965, that no personality test would be used unless administered under competent medical authority. If so, for what reasons? In what agencies other than FAA are such tests used as part of general medical evaluation programs? Assuming, on the basis of your testimony of last year, that any medical officer evaluating an applicant or employee may in certain circumstances decide to utilize psychiatric and psychological tools and techniques, have any of the departments or agencies issued guidelines for these medical specialists? Have any discouraged or forbidden the use of personality tests in such cases? It is my understanding that excepted employees are not subject to your directive and have their own medical programs. How many employees and which agencies currently are in this category? Thank you for your assistance in our study. With all kind wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Chairman. U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., September 26, 1966. Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1966, concerning the use of personality tests. Enclosed with your letter was a complaint by a Federal employee in Guam I believe this refers to the Civilian about the use of a test identified as "CSSB." Supervisory Selection Battery which is a test prepared and used by the Department of the Air Force in connection with filling supervisory positions. having a detailed report on this test prepared in response to your request and will send it to you as soon as possible. I am You also asked whether there are any deviations from the policy I stated to your Subcommittee in June 1965, relating to the use of personality tests with Federal employees in the competitive service other than those used by a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist in connection with medical determinations for employment or fitness for duty. Although I cannot be absolutely certain without making an extensive inquiry, I can say that no new instances have come to our attention in the past year. In view of the attention focused on this issue I feel sure that if such tests were being used in a way contrary to our policy we would have heard about it by now, either from the agencies concerned or the employees affected by them. It will take some time to gather from all agencies the information you requested concerning the use of personality tests as part of general medical evaluation programs. I will call for such a report from agencies and advise you of the I would estimate that this findings as soon as the information is available. report would require 60 to 90 days to complete. Your Subcommittee will also be interested in a review I am having made of a related issue growing out of the hearings held during the last session of the Congress. This concerns the use of personality tests in the selection of employees for work financed by the government, but performed by non-Federal employees. At the President's direction, I have advised all Federal agencies and departments that, in negotiating or renewing contracts, they are to review the contractors' policies for use of personality tests to ensure that any usage meets standards such Such a review will involve a as we apply generally in Federal employment. number of complex problems. My staff is now working with agency represenI expect the study to be completed tatives on the procedures for this survey. within the next six months, and I have advised agencies that I will be reviewing this issue with them in June, 1967, to assess our progress in stimulating imI will advise you of the proved personality test practices by their contractors. outcome of this review and any further steps taken on the basis of our findings. With respect to excepted employees, those in positions excepted from the competitive service by action of the Civil Service Commission and placed in Schedules A, B, and C, are subject to the policy that applies in general to the com petitive service. On the other hand, those employees who are excepted from the competitive service by statute are not subject to this directive. As requested, I will assemble information on the number of employees and agencies which are not subject to our policy. Sincerely yours, Senator SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman. Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: At the suggestion of Mr. Autry, I hereby forward my résumé and a few questions raised by my recent unsuccessful encounter with the psychological tests given by Dr. Langworthy and Dr. Phillips, consultants to the State Department, in behalf of USIA, whose research branch has been interested in hiring me as an opinion analyst and survey researcher. The tests to which I was subjected included the two mentioned in your Monthly Staff Report of 12/1/64. Also: the Rorschoch or ink blot test, a sentence completion test; a forced choice yes/no test that may be Dr. Phillips' own, as it was given to me in carbon copy form. There was also an IQ-type test of problem solving abilities. These tests were preceded by a half-hour interview in the State Department Medical Division with the consulting psychiatrist Langworthy, and some brief random interviewing by Dr. Phillips, administrator of the tests, at his office between R & S Streets on 21st Street. According to the instructions to the Medical Division, the purported object of the brief interviews and series of tests was to determine whether I can "work with other people." Apparently this was construed in the broadest possible way, for in breaking the bad news to me last Friday Dr. Langworthy brushed aside my inquiry as to whether it would make any difference what kind of people we're supposed to be working with. Whatever we do, he stated, we always work with other people, do we not? I emerged wondering how I had ever managed to stay alive this long, let alone advance at Corporation, where in my final year I apparently had contributed enough to cause the Board of Directors to grant me a $7,000 bonus, largest in the company's history. Dr. Langworthy left me in a further quandary when he reported his colleague's conclusion that I couldn't hold any job for a year. This professional opinion seemed at some odds with my six years at and my five years with the U.S. Navy as an Annapolis Midshipman and line officer, and my three years with a professional political research team. Also illustrative of the conclusions drawn by Dr. Phillips, as quoted to me from his report by Dr. Langworthy, was this statement: "This man runs from anxiety like a scared jackrabbit." As an inveterate yachtsman and Coast Guard licensed skipper who likes offshore sailing in all weather, I'm not sure precisely what is meant by this statement. If Phillips is suggesting I don't like anxiety, I'll plead guilty, although I have a knack for getting into some rather ticklish spots that produce more than their share of it. But I don't think that's what he meant. Dr. Phillips also disliked the way I flipped rather hastily through his ink blot test, and concluded I was arrogant and a few other un-nice things because I raised a few of the questions concerning me about the tests and their significance. It was quite clear Dr. Langworthy liked me no better; in fact he openly raised the question of whether I liked him and Dr. Phillips. I'm afraid I dodged the issue, instead of telling him right out I don't much like people whose profession is playing God, but it seems something of my feeling came through anyway and was duly noted. In short, from the review given me by Dr. Langworthy it was very hard to tell what played the dominant role in their negative analysis: their own impressions based on the extremely brief talks they had with me, or the actual test results. Actually, when it became clear I couldn't take the tests "honestly"—for I would have had to decline to answer at least half of all questions as being vague, ambiguous, oversimplified, misleading, or none of their damned businessI tried rather hard to give them the answers I thought might, in general, satisfy them I would be okay in the job applied for. If I flunked on the basis mainly of these tests, it certainly proves I'm a lousy test-taker. But then, I told Dr. Phillips and Langworthy that at the outset. If you've spent a lot of time making up and analyzing survey questions, you can become a very poor subject for such things. Each question you look at is likely to raise a half dozen questions you want answered before sticking your neck on the researcher's axe. Needless to say, neither of the psychologists liked this very much. I was, in brief, a real flop. But perhaps my unhappy experience can be put to good use and help some one else avoid these peculiar hurdles. To this end: 1. Your Subcommittee may consider this full permission in writing to obtain the tests given me, and any and all reports and conclusions of the psychologists, and to make any use you wish of them save I should, in general, prefer to remain anonymous in any publicity given them. 2. I have devoted some time and thought to the problems raised here from the research point of view. My thoughts on the privacy issue are of little weight, but as some one with some experience in social science research my thoughts may be of use. For what they are worth, they are enclosed. In conclusion, I have nothing but praise for the officials at USIA-members of the research group-who have expressed interest in securing my services. From what I have learned of them, they are an admirable group and we are fortunate in having such able and dedicated public servants working in this important field. They could readily command a great deal more money for their services in commercial research, and much more adequate facilities and staff assistance. I admire them, and would consider it a privilege to serve with them. I was told today they will do what they can to prevent the negative ruling of the psychological testers from being the last word. Any interest you or your Subcommittee may take in this matter will be greatly appreciated, less for myself than for others. I doubt whether it would much help my possible career at USIA to be brought in over the opposition of Langworthy and Phillips, even if this could be done, but my experience may be of help to the good cause on which you are embarked. If so I shall be pleased. Please do not hesitate to call on me if I can be of service, Respectfully, SOME QUESTIONS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTERS 1. How do we know the tests do what they are supposed to? Any sound scientific test is "validated." That is, there is a clearcut outcome the test is supposed to predict. For example, Boyle's Law states a certain relationship holds among three variables: pressure, temperature and volume, Validation consists in experiments which repeatedly demonstrate that the relationship P=RVT holds. In what way are these psychological tests validated? They are supposed to predict certain aspects of people's behavior, but do they? And how do we know they do? 2. Do the tests apply equally to everybody, or could they apply to some and not to others? All psychological tests ultimately depend on a certain pattern of responses from test subjects. It is from these that "norms" are derived-the patterns that are supposed to be "normal" for a particular population. Various groups will have different patterns-depending on such things as their education, age, occupation, intelligence, etc. When it comes to hiring people, say, for professional positions in government, are those tested compared only with other professionals? Or with truck drivers? Or the general population? Or what? Against what groups should they be tested comparatively? Other scientific researchers? Secretaries? Or whom? When people take these tests who are aware of the differences among groups, are their answers influenced by not knowing who they are being compared with? Do they give different answers if they think they are being tested against the general population than they would if they thought they were being tested against their occupational peers? 3. Do the tests for professionals reflect other work done on this group? Considerable work has been done on psychological testing of scientists and researchers. Quite different testing questions and methods have had to be developed to apply to this highly trained group than is customary in testing college students or disturbed persons or the general population. Were any of the tests used by the State Department consultants drawn from these other efforts? If no, why not? What about the findings? Were the results of the tests given to professionals compared with those of other tests given to professional people specifically? If not, why not? 4. How are tests results affected by the nature of the testing situation? Do people respond to these tests any differently when they know their entire life may be profoundly altered by their answers? Are the "norms" based on the responses of people who know their responses are so critical, or from other perhaps "anonymous" respondents whose answers will not affect them one way or the other? 5. Would test results be significantly different if tests were taken another time? In order to minimize differences resulting from mood, circumstance, etc., such tests are often given to the same individual several times. At various times, people often differ greatly in their alertness, responsiveness, feelings and so on. Are the tests given by State Department consultants given only once? If so, why? And with what possible consequences? Are the testers prepared to give. the same tests more than once to the same person? If not, why not? 6. How many of the questions are such-or so phrased-that an intelligent person cannot in honesty answer them without qualification? A very high proportion of the questions used in these tests consist of very general propositions. Often, so general or vague that any trained mind must reject the questions as meaningless, misleading, or requiring explanation and definition. Yet the tests require an answer-yes or no, true or false, one or the other. If the very questions cannot be answered without dishonesty, what may be expected of the results? Moreover, a "yes" or "no" answer from a sophisticated respondent may mean something very different from exactly the same response by an unsophisticated respondent. How are these differences accounted for, if at all? 7. Do test results reveal something vital about the respondent, or, instead, about his ability to provide “satisfactory" answers to the questions? It may be assumed that people will either (a) provide "honest" answers to the test questions, or (b) attempt to answer them so as to "pass" the examination. How does the analyst know which kind of answer his respondent is giving? Does it make any difference? Does he know? 8. Is only one man responsible for the analysis of these tests? Can an "outside" expert check his findings? It is at least possible that Dr. Phillips, State Department consultant who conducts the psychological tests, might take a personal dislike to an applicant, or otherwise be influenced by other than scientific considerations. It is possible that he might base his conclusions on his impressions of an applicant rather than test results. What kind of check is there on this possibility? Can applicants request that their tests be checked out by some other psychologist? If so, which one? If not, why not? 9. What relevance do these tests have to the actual responsibilities of applicants (or respondents)? It would seem obvious that there may be a considerable "personality" difference among those exercising vastly different responsibilities. For example, in regard to the general notion of "how people work with people" it should be. clear that there is a significant difference between such people as (a) captains of ships, (b) commanders of tank corps, (c) heads of academic departments, (d) scientific researchers, (e) salesmen, (f) brickworkers-to mention but a very, very few. Does the same measure apply equally to all? Is it really true that no matter what you do-you "always work with people" so the results should always be the same??? Or might it be that the really important thing is how you do your job? Whether you know what should be done in whatever you are. supposed to do? DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., May 21, 1965. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., U.S. Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carl T. Rowan, Director, United States Information Agency, has referred your letter of March 8, 1965. to the Department of State for reply to certain questions regarding the medical examination of Mr. Agency, was referred to the Department of State for a routine medical evaluMr. an applicant for employment with the United States Information 71-994-67-28 |