Accomplishment Records
Accomplishment Records
The accomplishment record is a systematic procedure used to
collect information about applicants' training, education, experience,
and past achievements related to critical job competencies. The accomplishment
record is based on the behavioral consistency
principle that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.
Applicants are typically asked to submit information on personal
accomplishments to best illustrate their proficiency on critical job
competencies (generally between four and eight).
Specifically, applicants are often required to provide
written descriptions of what was accomplished, including detailed information
about the problem or situation, the specific actions taken, and the results or
outcomes achieved by those actions. The name and contact information of an
individual who can verify the statements is also usually required.
Accomplishments do not need to be limited to those demonstrating previous
experience on the specific job in question. Rather, experience gained from
other jobs or through community service, school, volunteer work, military
service, or even hobbies may also be used to provide examples of
accomplishments relevant to the targeted position.
Accomplishment statements are evaluated by a panel of
trained raters using competency-based benchmarks created for the targeted
occupation. The competency-based benchmarks typically provide specific
behavioral examples of what constitutes high, medium, and low levels of
proficiency. Scoring is typically based on the degree to which the behaviors
and outcomes described within the accomplishments reflect the benchmark levels
of proficiency. The length of the rating process, generally between two and
six weeks, is determined by the number of applicants and the number of
competencies being assessed. Because the accomplishment descriptions are in
the form of a written narrative, the method assumes applicants are able to
communicate in writing.
Variations of the traditional accomplishment record method
involve the collection of alternative types of applicant proficiency or
experience information. For example, applicants may be asked to complete a
self-report measure by checking off job-related tasks they have performed,
rating their degree of proficiency in performing job-related tasks, or rating
the extent to which they possess a critical job competency. This approach is
also considered a variation on the training and experience
evaluation method, discussed later in this section. Often,
accomplishments are later collected to support the self-reported information.
In cases where an accomplishment record cannot be implemented, self-report
questionnaires are sometimes used as an alternative pre-screen tool. It is
important to note the validity and reliability
evidence for some of these self-report measures have not been substantiated by
research, and may not be comparable to levels associated with traditional
accomplishment records.
Another variation of the accomplishment record is a process
requiring formal verification of the statements (e.g., via references) made by
applicants in their written accomplishments (and self-report information, if
applicable). This technique is intended to discourage applicants from
inflating or otherwise distorting their submitted accomplishment descriptions.
Considerations:
- Validity — If developed
properly, the critical dimensions of job performance to which applicants
respond will be representative of those required for the job (i.e., they
have a high degree of content validity) and
scores on the assessment will relate strongly to measures of overall job performance
(i.e., they have a high degree of criterion-related
validity)
- Face
Validity/Applicant Reactions — Reactions from professionals who
feel they should be evaluated on their experience is typically favorable;
Less favorable reactions may be observed for entry-level applicants having
relatively brief employment histories; When applied to entry-level
positions, it is important to give credit for accomplishments gained through
other than paid employment (e.g., school, volunteer work, community
service); Some prospective applicants who dislike writing detailed
narratives may be discouraged from applying
- Administration Method — Can be
administered individually via paper and pencil or electronically to a
large group of applicants at one time
- Subgroup Differences — Generally little or no performance differences are found between men and
women or applicants of different races, although the presence of subgroup
differences may depend on the specific competencies being assessed
- Development Costs — Accomplishment records can be developed for any occupation within two to
four weeks, depending on the number of dimensions measured; Time and cost
requirements are associated mainly with benchmark development, scoring
procedures, and rater training
- Administration Costs — Highly
time consuming for applicants to complete and the scoring may be more time
consuming compared to other assessment methods with clear right or wrong
answers (e.g., job knowledge tests);
The length of the rating process depends on the number of applicants and
competencies measured
- Utility/ROI — High return on
investment for managerial, professional, or other jobs where applicants
may prefer to be evaluated on the basis of their actual work experience
rather than an impersonal, standardized test; Investment of time and
effort to develop and administer may not be worthwhile in situations where
applicant reactions to traditional tests are not a concern
- Common Uses — Commonly used
when negative applicant reactions to traditional tests or test
"look-alikes" such as biodata are expected;
Also commonly used as a screening device prior to an interview
References:
(See Section VI for a summary of each article)
Hough, L. M.
(1984). Development and evaluation of the "accomplishment record" method of
selecting and promoting professionals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1),
135-146.
Hough, L. M.,
Keyes, M. A., & Dunnette, M. D. (1983). An evaluation of three
"alternative" selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 36(2),
261-276.
Sackett, P. R.,
Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J. E., & Kabin, M. B. (2001). High-stakes testing
in employment, credentialing, and higher education: Prospects in a
post-affirmative-action world. American Psychologist, 56(4), 302-318.
Schmidt, F. L.,
Caplan, J. R., Bemis, S. E., Decuir, R., Dunn, L., & Antone, L. (1979). The
behavioral consistency method of unassembled examining. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Personnel Resources and Development Center.
Schmidt, F. L., &
Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in
personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of
research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.