The purpose of aptitude testing is to predict an applicant's general level of future performance. Most of us have had experience taking some kind of aptitude test. For example, chances are, in high school you took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) to determine the likelihood of your success in college; before entering graduate school, you probably were required to take a Graduate Record Examination (GRE); if you went to law school, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) was a requirement. Each of these aptitude tests predicted your performance in the future.

Tests of intelligence (or IQ tests) assess an individual's mental ability, as well as his or her intellectual capacity to reason and apply skills and knowledge. Two of the most widely used tests for this purpose are these:

Administration of either of these tests requires specific training and, in many states, a license. Other tests of this nature are on the market today and can also do admirable jobs of measuring a candidate's intelligence.

Why are tests of intelligence important? In an article published in Fortune magazine, James Q. Wilson, professor of management at the University of California, Los Angeles, reviewed the book A Question of Intelligence: The IQ Debate in America, by Daniel Seligman (New York: Carol Publishing [Birch Lane Press], 1992). Professor Wilson wrote:

Intelligence tests are exceptional predictors of future performance. Consider taking advantage of them.

But be careful in your selection of tests. Be sure that the test you use to measure aptitude and intelligence has been professionally developed and that there is evidence that test results are valid and reliable.

Behavior tests operate in the soft area of measurement. They predict an applicant's behavior on the job by exploring motivation, personality patterns or problems, and interpersonal skills. This information can be helpful in gaining a better understanding of the applicant and in preparing to interview him or her.

It is essential, however, to determine exactly what personality traits are applicable to the job. The mandatory success factors that you've discovered through your assessment of the job (see Lesson 1, "Analyzing the Position" ) will suggest personality traits and interpersonal abilities that should be measured.

Information about a candidate derived from behavior testing will help keep your interview focused on important issues. Concerns identified by testing signal the need to probe certain areas more thoroughly in the interview.

Technical skills tests are tests that are best performed in the natural work environment. These tests are designed to measure an applicant's ability to perform a specific task.

For example, a keyboarding test (formerly known as a typing test) measures an applicant's ability to produce a certain number of correct words per minute. Similar tests may seek to measure proficiency with various computer programs, or the ability to operate certain machinery or equipment.

A comprehensive clinical evaluation by a licensed industrial psychologist involves a combination of tests and interviews with the applicant. These evaluations are usually reserved for applicants contending for key management positions with an organization.

Comprehensive evaluations are thorough and require a significant amount of professional time to complete. The cost is usually between $500 and $1,200, depending on location.

The employer furnishes the psychologist with a complete description of the job, along with its mandatory success factors. The psychologist selects tests and inventories that probe critical areas and performs in-depth interviews with applicants designed to confirm and supplement test results. Upon completion of the evaluation, the employer is usually provided with a multipage narrative report discussing the fitness of the applicant for the job.

It never ceases to amaze me how many pop psychological tests appear on the market each year. Given the litigious nature of the society in which we live, it's difficult to imagine that anyone would risk using any instrument that has a questionable or nonexistent foundation in research.

Be careful. Pre-employment testing is, first and foremost, the practice of psychology. Let me say it again: Unless you have the requisite training and license, it's best to leave the practice of psychology to psychologists.

It is unlawful to require an applicant to take a medical examination in the preoffer stage of the employment selection process. Prospective employers may not even so much as make inquiries into the medical history of an applicant at this juncture. That's because the EEOC broadly defines "medical examination" to mean any procedure or test that seeks information about an individual's physical or mental impairments or health.

Questions concerning disability or about the nature and severity of a disability are also unlawful. Employers may ask questions about the applicant's ability to perform certain job-related functions, as long as the questions are not phrased in terms of a disability.

Also, employers may request applicants to perform physical agility tests that demonstrate their ability to do the job for which they are applying. However, any attempt to determine a physiological condition based on such a test would be considered a medical examination under EEOC guidelines and, therefore, would be prohibited.

In the postoffer stage of the selection process, an applicant can be asked to submit to a thorough medical examination. At this time, employers may also make disability-related inquiries.

One more important consideration: If a prospective employee is eliminated as a result of medical or disability information, the criteria used to exclude the prospective worker must be job-related and based on business necessity. Furthermore, an employer must be able to demonstrate that the essential functions of the job could not be performed by the employee even with a reasonable accommodation on the part of the employer.

The use of polygraph examinations in the selection process has been the subject of litigation. Courts have consistently held that the use of polygraph examinations in this manner is illegal unless the employer is one that is specifically exempted by the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. The Act exempts employers who provide private security services and employers who manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances.

Not long ago, the city of Long Beach, California, began a practice of requiring pre-employment polygraph examinations for all job applicants. City officials ordered the change in employment policy after discovering some money missing from city property.

The Long Beach City Employees Association sued the city but lost in Superior Court. However, the Supreme Court of California reversed the lower court's decision on appeal. The Supreme Court said that the city's policy on polygraph evaluations violated the prospective employee's right to privacy. The court further ruled that the city failed to prove a compelling interest to public safety that would necessitate polygraph testing, and questioned the reliability of the polygraph itself.

Polygraph examinations of existing staff are also prohibited. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act specifically prohibits demanding that present employees submit to polygraph examination. There are some exceptions, but they are few.

My advice if you're considering including a polygraph examination as a testing device: Forget it. Employers who violate the federal law are subject to a fine of $10,000 for each occurrence and, in addition, can be sued by the individuals involved.

Drug tests are permissible in the preoffer stage as long as the employer provides prior written notice to applicants. Employers must also be prepared to demonstrate that a drug test is required of all applicants who reach the preoffer stage.

The EEOC has made it clear that anyone who is currently using illegal drugs is not protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act and may be denied employment (or fired, if already employed) on the basis of such use. Also, a test for illegal use of drugs is not considered a medical examination, and employers are not required to demonstrate that the drug test is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

If the testing laboratory notifies the employer that a drug test was positive for a controlled substance, the employer should discuss the result with the applicant to determine if there is some reasonable explanation (the applicant is taking prescribed drugs which are controlled substances under the care of a physician, for example).

If an applicant cannot provide a reasonable explanation for the positive drug screen, an employer is justified in withdrawing the conditional offer of employment.

As I write this book, one of the greatest discoveries of our age was announced. Scientists involved in the Human Genome Project have announced that they have successfully "cracked" the human genetic code. This means that the locations and functions of human genes that code for inherited genetic traits have been discovered and mapped.

Although I'm no scientist, it seems clear that understanding the human genetic code has vast implications in the field of modern medicine. An individual's risk of falling victim to a genetically influenced disease may now be able to be identified early and treated proactively by altering the gene in question.

One of the unresolved issues that surrounds this discovery has to do with the use of genetic information in the workplace. Genetic information reveals predisposition to certain traits or disorders—should employers be allowed access to test results in considering applicants for employment? Should they be permitted to deny employment on the basis of genetic testing? Should employers be allowed to use genetic information to determine jobs best suited for an individual?

The legal and ethical implications of this research are overwhelming, challenging public policymakers to think beyond traditional legal and ethical paradigms.

Under current regulations, genetic testing would likely fall under the ADA's broad definition of "medical examination." If this is true, employers may require applicants in the postoffer stage to undergo genetic testing, as long as employers meet three basic conditions set by the ADA:

All this seems like a page out of Aldous Huxley's Utopia, in which science controls the destiny of humankind and an individual's genetic blueprint determines his or her fate. Without doubt, there is a dark side to genetic testing.