SEARCH · PubMed Health
Results for “Job Application”
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Evaluation of job applicants: the effects of age versus success.
177 participants evaluated female job applicants on the basis of a transcript of a job interview. One-half of the participants were told that the applicant was 63, one-half that the applicant was 24. Success or failure in obtaining the job was also manipulated. In addition, participants' scores on an attitude scale were compared to their assessment of the job applicants. There were no clear differences in evaluation of young and old applicants. Scores on the attitude scale were also unrelated to these evaluations. However, female participants rated the older applicants more positively than did males. In addition, knowledge of the outcome of the interview affected ratings. Regardless of age, people who were hired were rated more positively than those who were not. These results are disucssed in terms of implications for future studies of attitudes toward the elderly.
Performance on tests of power and speed as related to age among male job applicants.
A number of ability tests were administered to 187 male job applicants ranging in age from twenty to fifty-three years. When test-performance was compared across age groups, no significant differences were found on tests of mental ability, numerical ability, reading speed and comprehension, and mechanical comprehension. On one of two verbal comprehension tests, scores increased significantly as a function of age. Moreover, the older individuals were not penalized in any way by tests which emphasized speed as opposed to power. The findings were discussed in connection with the generally negative stereotype of the aging worker.
Training and proficiency in the medical review of job applicant drug screens.
A survey was performed to examine the proficiency of urine drug screen medical review officers (MROs) and the effect of training upon their performance. One hundred thirty-nine attendees of the ACOEM basic MRO training course, and 82 attendees of the advanced course completed both pre- and postcourse surveys. The questionnaires included 10 vignettes with positive analytical results; of which only half should be reported as positive to management. The mean number of correct responses among the 10 cases presented were: basic pre-test--4.91; basic post-test--7.45; advanced pre-test--6.68; advanced post-test--7.33. Differences between all four groups were significant (P < .001 to P = .003), except for the basic post-test versus the advanced post-test, for which there was no significant difference. It is concluded that 1) inadequate knowledge and skill in the medical review of drug screens may contribute to errors in reports to management, 2) physician's performance can be improved with training, and 3) certification of MROs in both the private and public sectors should be considered.
How to turn down job applicants without incurring charges of bias.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Tested tips for interviewing job applicants.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Rehab Act calls for new approach to interviewing job applicants.
Compliance with regulations implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act will require hospitals to revise hiring practices. Personnel administrators will need to examine employment screening and selection devices, especially, to ensure that they do not discriminate against handicapped applicants.
Ten steps to interviewing job applicants.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
[Labor-market survey among dentists with Norwegian authorization from 1972-1975. III. Number of positions since the authorization job applications and future plans].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Tested tips for interviewing job applicants.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Undergraduate education for rehabilitation: agency perceptions of training and characteristics preferred of job applicants.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Preemployment drug screening in a large metropolitan medical center: a one-month trial.
To assess the prevalence of illicit drug use among job applicants, a large metropolitan medical center conducted preemployment drug screening of all applicants during January 1988. Urine samples from 172 preinformed applicants were screened using Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique (Emit d.a.u.) followed by confirmatory gas chromatography/mass spectrophotometry. 4.1% of tests were positive for marijuana and/or cocaine and none was positive for heroin. Positive findings increased with decreasing socioeconomic status. The findings suggest that applicants for jobs in large medical centers in metropolitan areas are no different from those in other sectors of the economy with respect to illicit drug use.
Discrimination towards disabled people seeking employment.
This research was undertaken to determine whether or not disabled persons are at a disadvantage when seeking employment. An experimental design--mailing unsolicited job applications to employers--in a natural social setting allowed a study of employer's behaviour under naturalistic conditions. A randomized comparative study was conducted on a representative sample of 2228 branches of French companies, stratified as a function of their size. Four different profiles of applications were constituted by crossing two independent variables: the presence or absence of mention of a physical deficiency (paraplegia, with a wheelchair) in the job application, and high or low level of qualification. Using random sampling, the investigators sent each company an application for a job using one of these four profiles. Two experimental groups of companies were constituted (each of which received an application with either high or low qualification and mention of disability) with two control groups (applications with high/low qualification, without mention of disability). It was found that highly qualified able-bodied applicants were 1.78 times more likely to receive a favorable response than their disabled counterparts, and modestly qualified able-bodied applicants were 3.2 times more likely to receive a positive response. As well, discrimination became more marked as company size increased. In comparison with laboratory experiments, the results of this research permit a more objective assessment of discriminatory behaviour by companies confronted by disabled job applicants, and show a significant amount of discrimination towards individuals with a physical disability.
Assessing the likelihood of reliable workplace behavior: further contributions to the validation of the Employee Reliability Inventory.
This paper summarizes a number of studies in which the validity of the Employee Reliability Inventory, a preemployment screening instrument designed to assess the likelihood of reliable and productive workplace behavior, was examined. Criterion-related studies compared the scores of a broadly diverse group of job applicants with those obtained from an array of criterion and comparison groups, for whom there was documented evidence of reliable or unreliable behavior. Criterion-related evidence indicates that the six scales are effective in differentiating a variety of criterion groups with unreliable behavior from a number of different job applicant comparison groups. Construct-related evidence for the validity of an emotional adjustment scale is reported as well. The issue of response distortion in preemployment inventories is discussed, and data are reported which indicate that scores on all six scales appear to be functionally free from the potentially confounding effects of response distortion. These results are consistent with the original validation and cross-validation findings, which supported the validity of the six scales when assessing the likelihood of reliable behavior in a population of job applicants.
The employment disadvantage of being a smoker.
Three studies were done to examine the effects of being a tobacco smoker on employment prospects. In Study 1, thirty-two subjects reviewed application forms and rated four applicants as prospective employees. The subjects rated the nonsmoker version of the job applicants significantly more highly for hiring. In Study 2, forty-four subjects stated whether they preferred to hire smokers or nonsmokers and estimated the preference of employers generally. Those who stated a personal preference gave their reasons. Seven personal reasons for preferring a nonsmoker were mentioned by at least two subjects. The reasons ranged from dislike of tobacco smoke to concern about smokers taking more sick leave. In Study 3, which involved forty-six subjects, degree of endorsement of the attitudes underlying four of the seven preference reasons were found to be associated with degree of preference for non-smokers. The results of the three studies provide potentially useful information for job applicants and for individuals who design smoking prevention interventions.
The value of preplacement medical examinations for nonhazardous light duty work.
A prospective study on 6,125 job applicants for light duty telephone company work is presented, which indicates that a preplacement medical evaluation is not predictive of risks relating to work attendance or job performance in nonhazardous assignments. Results show that between groups of employees, who were medically classified at the time of hire into categories with or without employment risk factors, there was no significant difference relative to sickness, accident or other absence, or to work performance during the first twelve months after hire. A work force loss of 25% is seen during the first year after hire without significant difference between groups for either numbers of employees lost or reason for loss. A cost-benefit analysis based on this study is presented, which demonstrates that the preplacement medical evaluation for light duty assignments is not cost effective. In addition, further unnecessary costs are incurred when job applicants are medically evaluated but not hired, which is shown to occur here for 27.5% of healthy applicants.
Discriminatory aspects of pre-employment screening: low-back X-ray examinations in the railroad industry.
In screening the majority of job applicants, most of this nation's railroads administer a low-back X-ray examination in an attempt to ascertain the likelihood that the applicant will sustain future work-related low-back pain or injury. Many applicants are rejected for employment on the basis of the X-ray findings. The railroads apparently perceive this screening program as a cost-effective means (1) of decreasing the incidence of compensation claims for work-related injuries, brought against the railroads under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), (2) of reducing the number of lost workdays resulting from low-back pain or injury, and (3) of protecting particularly susceptible workers from job-related hazards. The authors of this Article submit that low-back X-ray examinations are poor predictors of future low-back pain or injury. They assert that the railroads' use of such examinations misclassifies a substantial number of job applicants as being at increased risk for such pain or injury, and, in consequence, unfairly denies them employment. Furthermore, the authors claim, the screening program has other negative consequences. For example, applicants rejected for railroad employment on the basis of X-ray findings may as a result have difficulty finding jobs in other industries. In addition, they state, there is a potential radiation hazard to examinees. Moreover, both the railroads and those applicants accepted for employment may inappropriately be reassured by normal findings. On balance, the authors conclude, the screening program has a negative social value. The authors suggest that the program, in effect, erraneously labels many applicants as handicapped, and then denies them employment. Such persons might have legal recourse under federal and state statutes prohibiting employment discrimination against the handicapped.