How do we know it is valid or reliable? Validity studies have been conducted over the past twenty years on thousands of individuals, which confirm that this tool does reliably measure value. Measuring value with science means:
1. What is measured is reliable.
2. The valuing process is measured using mathematical logic. Rather than describing how people differ in their ability to see and appreciate the worth of others, the Value Profile precisely measures how well one can see and appreciate others. This means that one can compare individuals to one another and look for numbers and patterns that suggest success—as well as difficulty—in performance.
How do we know it is objective? The Hartman Value Profile results are not affected by differences in age, race or sex. Tests have been Hartman on representative samples from a data base of over 6500 individuals to confirm that the Axiometrics Value Profile (including the underlying mathematics) is objective, and does not discriminate. Is it EEOC compliant? Yes. The EEOC has established three requirements for any testing instrument used as part of the hiring decision process:
1. The instrument must measure what it says it measures.
2. The instrument cannot discriminate according to age, race, or sex.
3. Whatever the instrument measures must have a direct application to the position being applied for.
Does the instrument measure what it says it measures? Yes. The industry standard used for validating instruments for effectiveness and accuracy is the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). A 100% statistical concurrency between the MMPI and Axiometrics Value Profile, entitled “Concurrent Validity Study of Hartman’s Valumetrics and Value Science Assumptions as a Revolutionary New Basis for Modern Behavior Science Applications,” was published in the VA Practitioner by Dr. Leon Pomeroy and Dr. John Davis. Another study performed by Dr. John Austin and Barbara Garwood, entitled “The Relationship of the Axiometrics Value Profile, Rokeach Value survey, Allpot-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Valuing and Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development” was presented to the National Association of School Psychologists in March, 1977. This study of the most prominent value measurement instruments validates the Axiometrics Value Profile in the measurement of value structures. Does the instrument discriminate according to age, race, or sex? No. AGE: The mean and standard deviation analysis of a random sampling of six (6) one hundred (100) profile groups from a population of 22,000 profiles produced a mean standard error of 1.38 with a standard deviation of 1.56. An analysis of a 25-35 year old group yielded a mean standard error of 1.41 with a standard deviation of 1.63. An analysis of a 45-55 year old group yielded a mean standard error of 1.34 and a mean standard deviation of 1.40. These statistics produce a significant difference of zero in the groups examined. RACE: The mean and standard deviation analysis of a random sampling of six (6) one hundred (100) profile groups from a population of 22,000 profiles produced a mean standard error of 1.35 with a standard deviation of 1.58. An analysis of a white group yielded a mean standard error of 1.26 with a standard deviation of 1.43. An analysis of a Hispanic group yielded a mean standard error of 1.44 with a standard deviation of 1.89. These statistics produce a significant difference of zero in the groups examined. SEX: The mean and standard deviation analysis of a random sampling of six (6) one hundred (100) profile groups from a population of 22,000 profiles produced a mean standard error of 1.36 with a standard deviation of 1.49. An analysis of a male group yielded a mean standard error of 1.45 with a standard deviation of 1.62. These statistics produce a significant difference of zero in the groups examined. Does what the instrument measures have direct application to the job position? Yes. The instrument measures the thinking style of the person, how s/he makes decisions in the work place. The instrument may also be refined to measure how closely an applicant’s Value Profile matches with those who are successful in a particular position. In summary, the Axiometrics Value Profile satisfies the following criteria:
1. It is objective. It does not ask respondents to describe themselves. It has them perform a task and analyses their decision-making pattern.
2. It cannot be biased. Unlike most other assessments, there is no indication in the items that allows someone to influence the score. Since the output depends on sophisticated mathematics, the assessment merely picks up the pattern of thinking the person is actually using. If someone attempts to manipulate the profile, a report will not be generated. There is a Rho statistic in the programming. This indicates whether the pattern of decisions is logical. In order for a pattern to be real and not accidental, the Rho score must be over 500. Value Profile will not print a report unless the score is at least 750.
3. It does not invade one’s privacy. The respondent is asked nothing about themselves other than how they would rank sets of items. There is no reference to their childhood or their personal behavior or their private life.
4. It has been validated in a business environment. Validity and reliability testing was based on Dollar General Corporation’s entire workforce of over 40,000 people, from Cal Turner the President in Nashville, to the warehouse employees in Miami. Additional studies were conducted at Sara Lee Corporation, GTE, CUNY Mutual, Arthur Andersen, and HCA.
5. It does not discriminate. There is no difference in scores between races, genders, and age levels. The same bell curves were found with each group. In fact, in one study of marginal unemployables in Manhattan conducted by the American Institute of Banking, the data from the minority groups receiving the remedial training followed the same curve as a randomly drawn sample of management personnel. This is powerful evidence that the Value Profile measures actual thinking processes that all human beings share, and that each human being can personalize in a unique way.
6. It measures what is centrally relevant to an organization’s performance: a person’s thinking and decision making process. The Value Profile makes no assumptions about a person based on information they give about themselves. It measures simply, directly, and accurately, the pattern of that person’s thinking process.
7. The Axiometrics Value Profile is unique. Organizations required to obtain multiple bids when contracting for services, like the Postal Service, for instance, need no second bid when contracting for use of Value Profile. They recognize that the objectivity and accuracy of this profile put it in a category by itself.
8. It has been reviewed and qualified by academic institutions. See following page for the studies undertaken at Georgetown, Harvard, Princeton, Vanderbilt, and Yale.
Validation and Approvals
The following is a sampling of validation and approvals.
1985: Reviewed and approved, legal department, MUNY Mutual, used for all employees until 1996 when the company was bought.
1986: Construct validity based on random samples of 40,000. Dollar General EEOC validity items, clinical variables, retest every 5 years.
1988: Criterion validity.
1988: Validity study, Chuck McDonald and Bill Murphy with Vanderbilt psychometrician.
1988: Reviewed and approved, GTE Legal and Psychometric-used until Training Center closed in Norwich, CT. (10 years later)
1990: Reviewed and approved, psychometrics, AT&T.
1990: Reviewed and approved by legal department, AIB.
1991: Reviewed and approved, Drake Beam Morin.
1991: Reviewed and approved, legal and psychometric, USPS, Lamon Mosely, Asst. Postmaster General.
1996: Reviewed and approved, KPMG, for leadership.
1996: Reviewed and approved, psychometrics, Arthur Andersen Consulting, Ann Mueller, psychometrician and adjunct faculty, University of Chicago.
1996: Reviewed and approved through peer review of Academic Psychometricians from Harvard, Princeton and Yale.
1996: Reviewed and approved, legal commission, Ernst and Young.
2000: Reviewed and approved, Graduate School of Education, Georgetown University, Marshal Saskin.
2003: Item Validity Study: IBTrans, Inc.
2003: Reviewed and approved, Various Divisional CEO’s, Hospital Corporation of America. (Still in use today – 2007)