COMMENTS ON REFERENCE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-00498A000200120008-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 13, 2002
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: June 7, 1976
• Content Type: MF

? Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000200
7 June 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Medical Services
FROM , Ph.D.
Chief, Psychological Services Staff
Office of Medical Services
SUBJECT Comments on Reference
REFERENCE Memo to DCI from Chairman, EEO Advisory
Panel, 17 December 75, "Use of Professional
Aptitude Tests and Review of Applicant
Folders", with subsequent memoranda offering
commentary on same from C/PSS (30 December
75), DMS (6 January 76), and D/Pers. (14
January 76).
1. Some clarification of points discussed earlier
has occurred. There is indeed some clear evidence of mis-
use of test reports. However, whatever opposition some
members of the Panel may have had to the use of tests, it
is clear that the Panel as a whole endorses their utility.
It also appears that the seeming contradiction between the
recommendation in para 2 that "tests be used as tools for
placement-in-the Agency rather than as tools for acceptance"
and the recommendation in para 3 linking the tests with the
security and medical procedures (which are used for accept-
ance) may have arisen in part from different viewpoints
within the Panel as to just how and when they should be used.
This continues to be the point at issue, and the earlier
comments from PSS and D/MS on this subject remain germane.
2. The Director of Personnel joins this discussion
with a proposal which brings up a much broader set of issues.
detail, and spells them out clearly in a memo (attached).
STATINTL
STATINTL
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000200120008-8
 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000200120008-8
In so doing, he observes quite rightly that the changes
proposed can be examined most appropriately in the context
of a general review of Agency personnel selection/assignment
decision-making processes, and suggests that PSS offer its
services in support of such a review: I endorse this idea,
and would be pleased to make PSS resources available for
this purpose.
Attachment
Memo from Chief, Assessmek Testing Branch
STATINTL
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000200120008-8
 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000200120008-8
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Medical Services
Ph.D.
Chief, Assessment and Testing Branch
Office of Medical Services
VIA
Ph.D.
Chief, Psychological Services Staff
Office of Medical Services
SUBJECT Selection Processing of Agency Pro-
fessional Level Applicants
REFERENCE Memorandum from Director of Personnel
dated 14 January 1976: "Comments on
Memo to the DCI by the EEO Advisory
Panel", dtd 17 December 1975
25X1A
25X1A
1. In light of D/Pers. observations regarding possible
courses of action to "streamline" and render more effective
the Agency's current selection-processing strategy and tech-
niques, it appears desirable for Psychological Services Staff
(PSS) to proffer its scientific expertise and experience in
support of a possible review of Agency personnel decision-
making procedures. Such a review seems particularly appro-
priate now when PSS is actively involved with the Operations
Directorate in developing new pre-screening procedures for
all applicants evidencing potential for careers in Operations.
Before addressing the general topic of Agency selection-pro-
cessing, a factual/actuarial base regarding PSS input to
selection-processing must be laid for clarifying several
points raised in the referenced D/Pers. Memorandum.
2. The Professional Applicant Test Battery (PATB) is a
multi-factor paper-and-pencil variety battery yielding in-
formation regarding applicants' general and special abilities,
occupational interests; work attitudes; self-concepts; writing
CLASSIFIED BY_.35~ ?f
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP79-00
! UJE"C TO V, EEL
OF E. 0. 11652, fi3~St i'rwai;`ca.sEw3.Y iy;gPt'3ik`ys AT
17,15 1' ,;I J SEIPALS MFI7 Je.:;: it ca WA
 Approved For Release 20U!pt1J"/ly RQW98A000200120008-8
SUBJECT: Selection Processing of Agency Professional Level
Applicants
skills and; a wide range of self-report biographic data.
PATB Part I.
yields
regarding general ability; several specific
abilities including aptitude for foreign language mastery;
occupational interests and; limited archival/self-report
biographic data.
(a) Distance, money, inconvenience and time away
from the fob re PATB I.
There are a total of 82 centers spread through-
out 42 states (including Hawaii). Selection of locations
for the Centers has been made to maximize accessibility
of the Centers to those areas of major applicant input
to the Agency. Rather than too few Centers, recent data
suggest a possible excess i.e., over the present Fiscal
Year (FY 76), 12 of the established Centers have never
been used by the Recruiters.
As to money, the cost of Center operations is
borne by PSS (@ $13 to $14 per applicant tested). Field
Testing has traditionally been perhaps the least costly
element in selection processing. It should also be
pointed out that the Agency does not authorize per diem
or travel allowances for applicants during the Field
Testing phase.
Finally, the schedule for Field Testing has
customarily been set for weekend (Saturday) testing
so as to minimize possible disruption of applicants'
work-week routines.
Thus, distance, money, inconvience and time
away from the job all argue for continuance of the
present Field Testing Program.
(b) Availability of PSS PATB Part I Reports,
PATB Part I results are integrated into report
format for use by decision-makers by PSS. (No PATB raw
test score data are released to consumers,) The time
from Skills Bank (OP) notification to PSS that an AM
PATB report is desired tit completion and release of
the PSS report typically covers a span of one work week.
-2-
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000200120008-8
25X1
 Approved For Release 20C9/Q N W4 498A000200120008-8
SUBJECT: Selection Processing of Agency Professional Level
Applicants
Receipt of test results from the Field Centers covers
a range up to two work weeks. Machine/computer pro-
cessing of the test results typically requires one
work week. Thus by the fourth week after Field Testing,
PATB Part I results are available for write up. Skills
Bank requests for PSS reports typically are received
some five work-weeks after Field Testing. There is,
practically speaking, no "delay" in dispatch of PSS re-
ports to decision makers as a function of Field Testing
or test processing by PSS. Apparent delays are potential-
ly a function of time elapsed between recruiter contact
and Recruiter scheduling of testing at a Field Center.
3. Implications and consequences of conducting all PATB
testing at Headquarters must be grasped in the contexts both
of: (a) additional costs incurred and; (b) impact upon Agency
selection strategies.
(a) Recruiters typically refer for Field Testing
those applicants who present a "good file" and a "good
recruiter interview report". During FY 75 some 1580
such applicants were scheduled for Field Testing. Of
these, only 324 were later brought into the Headquarters
area for administration of PATB Part II. With continua-
tion of present Recruiter Screening standards (a "good"
file plus "good" Recruiter interview) it is reasonable
to assume that Headquarters testing facilities would have
to absorb the total numbers now included in Field Testing
(based on FY 75 figures, a nearly 400% increase). The
implications of this increase for only the PSS segment
of Applicant processing is as follows (using FY 75 data):
(1) An overall increase of 1580 PATB Part I
testing units at Headquarters.
(2) An overall increase of 1256 PATB Part II
testing units at Headquarters (1580 PATB Part I minus
the present 324 PATB Part II). Since the Agency will
have already funded travel and per diem for the
Applicant's travel to Headquarters, it is not cost
effective to administer only the PATB Part I at the
time of this Headquarters visit.
(3) Given the present 518 Full PATB's (Part I
and Part II) already administered at Headquarters,
the total Headquarters testing load will amount to
-3-
Approved For Release 206 Q Fi EJMA 0498A000200120008-8
 Approved For Release 20003/07- TRIAL 98A000200120008-8
SUBJECT: Selection Processing of Agency Professional Level
Applicants
2098 persons. To respond simply to the increased
test administration load will require a minimum of
two (2) additional Psychometrists (GS-07).
(4) The addition of PATB Part II will increase
the number of data-machine processing work units
from 5 to 11 and add two additional test data units
which require hand processing. To respond to this
aspect of the increase will require a minimum of
one (1) additional Data Machine Operator (GS-05).
(5) Finally, the professional time required for
integration of PATB data and reporting will increase
from 12-15 minutes (PATB Part I) to 30-40 minutes
(Full PATB). To respond to this aspect of the in-
crease will require a minimum of (1) additional MA
level psychologist (GS-09).
(6) The minimum costs (personnel only) to PSS
in transferring the Field Testing Program to Head-
quarters is estimated as $44,449.00 as ted
with the FY 75 costs 25X1
of $21,670.00
(b) The utility of the PATB, whether Part I or Part
II can be elucidated only within the context of the Agency
Selection Processing system of which it is a part. As
treated in the referenced Memorandum, the PATB is depicted
as some monolithic criterion to be employed by decision-
makers in a "Pass-Fail" mode i.e., "Mr. So-and-so 'passed'
('failed') his PATB so now we can (cannot) hire him".
Instead, the PATB affords the decision-maker to
view the Applicant he/she compares with standards for
on-board Agency Professional Employees across a wide
range of possible Agency placements. Beyond this perspec-
tive, PATB also often raises questions (not answered by
testing) which the decision-maker can and usually does
pursue during his/her own contacts with the Applicant.
To insert PATB input to Selection Processing into the
final stage of the Agency selection strategy would destroy
its utility as an inexpensive early screening device and
render it ineffective as a means of surfacing questions
which need early resolution.
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000200120008-8
 CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP79-00498A000200120008-8
SUBJECT: Selection Processing of Agency Professional Level
Applicants
4. In reviewing the present selection-processing
strategy, it must be pointed out that only the PATB element
has regularly been subjected to rigorous evaluation and
review in order to determine its practical significance for
identifying performance-related potential among applicants.
The PATB has consistently been found valid for selection
purposes. Those elements cited in the referenced Memorandum
("good file.. .good Recruiter interview") have not been system-
atically studied in an effort to determine their actual con-
tribution to the strategy. It may well be that these elements
do, or could, make a unique contribution. To suggest at this
time that these unevaluated elements can be regarded as an
adequate substitute for the established utility of the PATB
(particularly when the increased funding necessary to support
this substitution is considered) does not appear to be either
supported by the facts in evidence or an economical change in
the Agency selection processing system.
25X1A
Approved For Release 200COtl R1'Pt498A000200120008-8