>>> Part 14 of 19...
in operation very long to give real accurate answers to the questions 
above" (male, 36, about Factor 1000). "Although I'm not real fond of 
performance testing, I do think there is a  need for it....[W]hether it
works or not, [it] is at least a means of trying to be proactive in
safety concerns (male, 37, about Factor 1000)." "Performance testing is
a valid way to assess my fitness for work and is much more palatable
than drug testing . As with any method, I don't think it is 100%
foolproof" (male, 40, about Factor 1000).
 
Whereas a total of three respondents commented that fitness-for-duty 
testing is preferable to drug testing, two expressed the opposite 
opinion.
 
Six commented that fitness-for-duty testing is stressful: "Taking the 
test every day causes more stress than the job" (male, 42, about Factor 
1000). "The test itself is stressful in that if one doesn't pass right 
way, we tend to get upset, which seems to affect performance. In other 
words, if I wasn't impaired to begin with, I may be by the end of the 
tries of the test" (female, 42, about Factor 1000).
 
Six expressed that performance testing is intrusive and/or that it 
signals a lack of trust: "I feel it is an invasion of privacy for me to 
take this test" (female, 32, about Delta-WP).
 
"I have worked for this organization for 23 years and have always had 
satisfactory to exemplary performance evaluations. I feel "untrusted" 
[sic] now that I have to proved my fitness for work before every shift" 
(male, 45, about Factor 1000).
 
Four respondents complained that fitness-for-duty testing is too 
time-consuming: "My co-workers and I are already faced with limited
time.  The ten minutes it takes for the test alone is very valuable, not
to mention waiting to take it and having to retake it if the printer
jams, etc." (male, 24, about Delta-WP). "Personally, I've had difficulty
passing Factor 1000 if I have a lot of work issues to deal with early in
the morning. I resent having to take valuable time out to find a free
machine and then deal with it if I don't pass on the first try" (female,
33).
 
Twelve respondents commented on the unfairness of performance testing. 
Many deemed it unfair because not everyone in their organization is 
tested. Additionally, some consider testing unfair because a) it does
not measure what it purports to measure, b) individuals with higher
baselines must always perform better, or c) the test is personally
discriminating:  "Where I work, not all employees have to take the test
-- a double standard which...causes a bad attitude" (male, 29, about
Factor 1000).  "It's been really hard for me. I have mixed dominance. My
left eye is dominant and my right hand is dominant... I've never been
good at video games because my hand-eye coordination wasn't up to
par....[A]fter you fail three sets of eight we have to take a drug test.
Which I think is wrong. Because I've failed it more times than anyone
[else] at the company" (male, 23, about Factor 1000).
 
The most common topic of respondents' comments about fitness-for-duty 
testing was their doubts as to its validity. Whereas three individuals 
indicated their uncertainty about the validity of performance testing,
33 have decided more definitively that testing does not work. Several 
reported that they have seen impaired individuals pass and fit
individuals fail: "I have failed the computerized fitness test when
there was no reason for me to be "unfit" -- no controlled substances,
plenty of rest, no undue stress. I have also seen people come to work
extremely hung over and pass. I have seen people drink three beers and
two shots of hard liquor and pass. This is not a foolproof system"
(male, 45, about Factor 1000). "As a drug user, I can assure you that
Factor 1000 does not work" (male, 27).
 
In addition to commenting about performance tests' inability to detect 
the presence of risk factors, employees also question its job-related 
validity: "I have seen workers hung over to the extent that [they] can't
do their jobs well, but can pass Facto r 1000" (male, 60). "I don't feel
[Delta-WP] is an accurate representation, mainly because it is not
directly job related....[T]he only way to evaluate a worker and deem
him/her "fit to work" is simply by being observed by the supervisor, or
by judging the quality and quantity of work (male, 24)."
 
Respondents also observed that the difficulty of Factor 1000 varies: "I 
believe that the test is inconsistent. [It] has let me in when it 
shouldn't have, with a considerable amount of ease. I myself have never 
been locked out. Some days it is more difficult and other days it lets 
me in with little effort" (male, 21). "Performance testing is
inconsistent with respect to failure region. For example, some tests
take as much as two minutes to complete with the marker remaining in the
white area for most of the test time and a failure result, while some
tests are passed with only 15 seconds of test time" (male, 23).
 
Moreover, contrary to test manufacturers' assurances, some employees 
assert that they can pass or fail intentionally. "I have failed because
I wanted to. The reps said there is no way that a person could alter the
results. Not true" (male, 44, about Factor 1000). "You can get a
majority of answers wrong but do it very quickly and get a very good
score. I know this to be true because many people I work with don't pay
any attention to the questions or simply keep one key depressed for the
entire test and end up with very good scores" (female, 32, about
Delta-WP).
 
Revisiting Questions about Fitness-for-Duty Testing 
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------