Is use of the Hogan consistent with the ADA?
#31
I'm not worrying about it. I'm bringing it up as a matter of law and general interest. I have friends who are entirely competent pilots who believe, rightly or wrongly, that their careers have been adversely affected by the Hogan.
#32
I've never had a positive test for cancer either but if I were going to get a screening test for cancer it would be important for me to know how often a positive test was really associated with actually having cancer too, as well as how often a negative test missed finding a cancer.
#33
Look at any thread here asking for an AME recommendation and there are tons of "pilot friendly" examiners. I have even heard of pilots taking a 3 hour flight for an easy medical.
So, by avoiding a bar fight, you should get a job at a legacy.
Are you serious? You have a valid license and don't test positive for explosive residue.
I agree that a recommendation is good, but if every active pilot recommends someone, then how is management realistically supposed to rate each and every one of the 10,000 plus recommendations?
Personally, I am against personality tests too, but when a company has to evaluate literally thousands of applicants they are looking for anything that will help them reduce the number of people that they actually have to interview.
#34
Like most industries, ours is messed up and not 100% fair. But one cannot solely blame their failing career on the Hogan. There are many options available, but it might require one to give up on the specific dream for flying for United.
#35
Look, all I can do is tell you to look at the facts on screening tests OF ANY KIND in an already highly screened group.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...the-positives/
Personality tests might be reasonable if they really made a difference, but there is little evidence to suggest they do. And the norming that Hogan and other companies use for their 'validity testing' measures their results against an unscreened population, and even then the results do not have huge predicting power. The same test applied against your average applicant to a major simply lacks the statistical power to predict much of anything, which is why the majors that don't use the Hogan don't seem to have any disadvantage in personnel over those who do.
#36
Again, these tests have NOTHING to do with *ability*, and everything to do with cultural/institutional fit of a candidate into an organization.
Are they perfect? No, absolutely not, nothing is...but they are another tool in the HR arsenal to mitigate the risks of a candidate ending up a liability to a company as an employee.
And for the record, I think the tests are bunk too and miss a lot of good people..but legally discriminatory, absolutely not.
I never took MMPI, but Hogan was little more than the same question asked four-six times with varying degrees of 'intensity', with at least one absolute trap question for integrity thrown in, ie. "I have never lied" - True or False. EVERYBODY has lied in some fashion, so if you answer True to that you're done. Then you get "I try not to lie", "I lie to others often", and "I sometimes tell a little white lie to spare someone's feelings". Doesn't take a Tier One Rocket Surgeon to figure out where the goalposts are there...
Are they perfect? No, absolutely not, nothing is...but they are another tool in the HR arsenal to mitigate the risks of a candidate ending up a liability to a company as an employee.
And for the record, I think the tests are bunk too and miss a lot of good people..but legally discriminatory, absolutely not.
I never took MMPI, but Hogan was little more than the same question asked four-six times with varying degrees of 'intensity', with at least one absolute trap question for integrity thrown in, ie. "I have never lied" - True or False. EVERYBODY has lied in some fashion, so if you answer True to that you're done. Then you get "I try not to lie", "I lie to others often", and "I sometimes tell a little white lie to spare someone's feelings". Doesn't take a Tier One Rocket Surgeon to figure out where the goalposts are there...
#37
Again, these tests have NOTHING to do with *ability*, and everything to do with cultural/institutional fit of a candidate into an organization.
Are they perfect? No, absolutely not, nothing is...but they are another tool in the HR arsenal to mitigate the risks of a candidate ending up a liability to a company as an employee.
Are they perfect? No, absolutely not, nothing is...but they are another tool in the HR arsenal to mitigate the risks of a candidate ending up a liability to a company as an employee.
These tests are normed against the general population. Even in that group they lack statistical power. But in this context they are being used against a highly screened population.
The overwhelming majority of guys who are chronic troublemakers never made it through all the hoops; multiple check rides, thousands of hours of successful flying, a half dozen physicals, working with dozens of other pilots as they accumulated their 121 hours,etc. The unmotivated people who would rather hold up a sign on the street corner claiming to be a Vietnam war vet (the last one, I swear, was in his mid 20s) do not go to the effort to get there.
You simply don't add value to a screening process by using such an ineffective tool against an already pre screened and select population. You just don't.
The USAF looked at it. By the time someone had successfully completed UPT/UNT, went on to RTU, and became a squadron flyer, monitored along the way by SOFs, supervisors, and Stan-eval, gotten a security clearance, etc., the yield on other stuff - including personality tests, was essentially zero.
Aptitude tests for newbies coming in the door at Basic Training or a flight screening program prior to going to UPT/UNT? Different story. It was the USAF (OK, Army air corps back then) that developed the stanine testing. With those aptitude tests you can at least mitigate your training costs a little, by not sending to expensive training people highly likely to drop out, but personality tests? At the level of already trained flyer? No cost-benefit whatsoever. You were wasting the taxpayers money, at least at that end of the pipeline.
And in real life, can you actually tell me you believe that a major airline company that uses the Hogan routinely has fewer problem child aviators than a major airline that doesn't? And that you believe the difference if any us actually attributable to the Hogan?
#39
Or maybe they'll decide it's not worth defending the statistically indefensible if someone does take them to court.
We'll see.
You have a good day now...
#40
Originally Posted by Excargodog
The overwhelming majority of guys who are chronic troublemakers never made it through all the hoops; multiple check rides, thousands of hours of successful flying, a half dozen physicals, working with dozens of other pilots as they accumulated their 121 hours,etc.
And in real life, can you actually tell me you believe that a major airline company that uses the Hogan routinely has fewer problem child aviators than a major airline that doesn't? And that you believe the difference if any us actually attributable to the Hogan?
I do have a hard time believing organizations would use psych evals (with associated costs) if THEY didn't firmly believe they provided value in the recruiting process.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post