Docstoc

Pre Employment Physical Request Form

Document Sample
Pre Employment Physical Request Form Powered By Docstoc
					            Expect the Unexpected: Are We Clearly Prepared?


                        Physical Ability Testing and
                         Practical Examinations:
               They Fought the Law and the Law Won


   Nikki Shepherd Eatchel, M.A.             Robin Rome, Esq.
   Vice President, Test Development         Vice President, Legal and Contracts
   Thomson Prometric                        Thomson Prometric


         Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation
2006 Annual Conference                                  Alexandria, Virginia
        Physical Ability Testing and Practical Exams


Goals for today’s presentation:

• Outline the major risk factors for physical ability and
  practical examinations

• Recommend specific developmental activities and other
  measures that will help withstand a legal challenge

• Provide recommendations for evaluating exams developed
  by you or for you


              Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                  September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
Physical Ability and Practical Exams: Challenges to Validity



Although all employment, certification, and
licensure testing is certainly open to challenge,
exams designed to physically assess a candidate’s
performance on specific job skills and tasks are often
more vulnerable to challenge than objective written
exams.



             Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                 September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
Physical Ability and Practical Exams: Challenges to Validity


Examples of physical ability and practical exams:

•   Firefighter certification
•   Police officer pre-employment
•   Nursing practical for licensure
•   Corporate product certification
•   Food safety practical for licensure




               Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                   September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
  Physical Ability and Practical Exams: Challenges to Validity

Why are physical ability and practical exams more vulnerable to
challenge?

• Reliance on exam rater judgments regarding how a task was performed
  introduces the possibility of error in the assessment of the skill or task
  (human error)

• Often, when only one rater is used to assess a candidate, there is
  increased likelihood of disagreement between the rater and the candidate

• Physical ability exams typically have greater adverse impact upon
  protected groups than the written exams involved in a employment,
  certification, or licensure process (though practical exams do not tend to
  show the same pattern)



                  Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                      September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
               Standards Used For Exam Evaluation

There are two set of standards that are often used to guide the
development and evaluation of exams, they are as follows:

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 1999
        Developed jointly by the American Educational Research
        Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association
        (APA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education
        (NCME)

Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 1978
        Developed by the Equal Employment Opportunity
        Commission (EEOC)




                 Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                     September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
             Standards Used For Exam Evaluation


Although both sets of standards contain valuable information
regarding the development process (and both should be considered
when developing a testing program), courts more frequently refer
to the Uniform Guidelines as the resource for evaluating exams.

The Uniform Guidelines are “entitled to great deference” by courts
deciding whether selection devices such as physical ability or
practical tests comply with Title VII.

                Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 , 434




               Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                   September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
 Physical Ability and Practical Exams: Challenges to Validity




What are the aspects of an examination that are most
likely to be scrutinized if the validity of a physical
ability or practical exam is challenged ?




              Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                  September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
Physical Ability and Practical Exams: Challenges to Validity


                         Job Analysis

              Criterion-Related Validity

                            Cutscore

                       Rater Training

              Candidate Appeal Process

             Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                 September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
     Physical Ability and Practical Exams: Job Analysis


A job analysis is crucial in establishing that the content of the
physical ability or practical exam is valid. Key components of
the job analysis include:

Content Validity

Validity Generalization

Adequate and Diverse Sample Sizes




              Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                  September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
             Job Analysis - Content Validity


Although there are multiple validity methods that
can be used during the test development process, the
foundation for acceptable development practice
continues to reside with traditional content validity
methods.
Supplemental validity methods are typically seen as
beneficial, yet not sufficient, when courts evaluate
testing processes.



            Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                   Job Analysis - Content Validity


When evidence of validity based on test content is presented, the rationale
for defining and describing a specific job content domain in a particular
way (e.g., in terms of task to be performed or knowledge, skills, abilities,
or other personal characteristics) should be stated clearly.

                                      Standard 14.9

A job analysis is necessary to identify the knowledge, skills and abilities
necessary for successful job performance.

A selection procedure can be supported by a content validity strategy to
the extent that it is a representative sample of the content of the job.

                                      Guidelines, 29 CFR 1607.14(C)(1)



                 Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                     September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
            Job Analysis - Content Validity
                     Case Study
                  Williams v. Ford

Facts

• Class action claiming that pre-employment test
  for unskilled hourly production workers, Hourly
  Selection System Test Battery (HSSTB),
  discriminated against African Americans.

• Physical/practical parts of HSSTB measured parts
  assembly, visual speed and accuracy and
  precision/manual dexterity.
           Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
               September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                       Job Analysis - Content Validity
                                 Case Study
                          Williams v. Ford (cont’d)

Plaintiff’s Position                         Ford’s Position

Disparate impact discrimination, i.e.,       HSSTB was content valid as supported by a
African Americans failed or scored lower     job analysis.
on the test in disproportionately high
numbers when compared to whites.             Job analysis consisted of:

HSSBT was not content valid because the        –   Supervisor identification of job inventories
job analysis failed to demonstrate a clear     –   Supervisor rating of importance of job
linkage of specific requirements.                  requirements and job abilities identified in
                                                   the inventories
                                               –   Analysis of reliability ratings and data to
                                                   identify key job requirements
                                               –   Development of test to measure skills
                                                   needed to perform the job requirements
                                                   rated as “important”




                     Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                         September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                         Job Analysis - Content Validity
                                   Case Study
                            Williams v. Ford (cont’d)

Holding

Ford demonstrated that the HSSTB was content valid.

Reasoning

•     Ford had the burden of showing that the HSSBT was job related:

      “[Must show] by professionally acceptable methods, [that the test is] predictive or significantly
      correlated with important elements of work behavior that comprise or are relevant to the job or
      jobs for which the candidates are being evaluated.” Williams v. Ford, 187 F.3d 533, 539 (6th Cir.
      1999).

•     Ford met this burden by showing that the HSSTB was content valid – It used a
      professional test developer to conduct a job analysis that complied with the EEOC
      Guidelines.




                       Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                           September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
             Job Analysis - Validity Generalization


An issue often referred to in test development is validity
generalization. Validity generalization is defined as:

“Applying validity evidence obtained in one or more situations
to other similar situations on the basis of simultaneous
estimation, meta-analysis, or synthetic validation arguments.”

                                          Standards, 1999, p. 184




                Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                    September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
               Job Analysis - Validity Generalization

Transfer of validity work from one demographic and/or geographic
area to another, while certainly possible when based on good initial
validity work and a clear delineation of the original and secondary
populations, has not been well received by courts as a defensible
practice.

This has typically been due to lack of appropriate documentation
regarding the similarity of both the populations involved with the
generalization and the interpretations resulting from the instrument.




                  Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                      September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
              Job Analysis - Validity Generalization
                           Case Study
                       Legault v. aRusso

Facts

•   Challenge to physical abilities tests used to select fire
    department recruits.

•   Selection process included a four-part pass/fail physical
    abilities test involving climbing a ladder, moving a ladder
    from a fire engine, running 1.5 miles in 12 minutes, and
    carrying and pulling a fire hose. It also included a separate
    physical abilities test focusing on a balance beam, second
    hose pull and obstacle course.


                 Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                     September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                      Job Analysis - Validity Generalization
                                   Case Study
                           Legault v. aRusso (cont’d)

Holding

Fire department failed to show the physical abilities tests were job related.

Reasoning

•    The job analysis relied on by the fire department was not temporal or specific:

     -    Validity was not supported by a “several-year-old job specification that describe[d] the
          firefighter’s general duties.” Legault v. aRusso, 842 F. Supp. 1479, 1488 (D.N.H. 1994)
     -    Validity was not supported by a specification identifying only general tasks (e.g.,
          “strenuous physical exertion,” “operating equipment and appurtenances of heavy apparatus,”
          etc.). The specification also failed to break these tasks into component skills, assess their
          relative importance or indicate the level of proficiency required.

•    The physical abilities tests were not valid simply because they were similar to those used
     by other cities - There was no evidence these similar tests were validated and “follow the
     leader is not an acceptable means of test validation.” Legault, 842 F. Supp. at 1488.



                         Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                             September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
        Job Analysis – Adequate and Diverse Sample Sizes


Adequate and diverse sample sizes are a necessity for ensuring validity and
increasing the defensibility of an exam.

“A description of how the research sample compares with the relevant labor market
or work force, . . ., and a discussion of the likely effects on validity of differences
between the sample and the relevant labor market or work force, are also desirable.
Descriptions of educational levels, length of service, and age are also desirable.”

“Whether the study is predictive or concurrent, the sample subjects should insofar
as feasible be representative of the candidates normally available in the relevant
labor market for the job or group of jobs in question . . .”

                                                             Uniform Guidelines




                    Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                        September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
    Job Analysis – Adequate and Diverse Sample Sizes
                        Case Study
               Blake v. City of Los Angeles


Facts

• Female applicants challenged the police
  department’s height requirement and physical
  abilities test.

• Applicants were required to be 5’6’’ and to pass a
  physical abilities test including scaling a wall,
  hanging, weight dragging and endurance within
  specific parameters.

            Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
          Job Analysis – Adequate and Diverse Sample Sizes
                             Case Study
                Blake v. City of Los Angeles (cont’d)


Plaintiffs’ Position                            The City’s Position

Challenged the methodology and findings         The height requirement was job related –
of validation studies presented by the City.    Offered validation studies correlating height
                                                to performance:
The validation studies relating to the height
requirement did not include the individuals      –   Questionnaire showing that taller officers
whom the police department was seeking to            tend to use more force and experience less
reject, i.e., those under 5’6.”                      suspect resistance
                                                 –   Simulations demonstrating that taller
                                                     officers performed bar-arm control better
The validation studies relating to the               than shorter officers
physical abilities test did not include those
who failed the test and tested only success     The physical abilities test was job related –
during academy training, not success on the     Offered validation studies correlating skills
job.                                            tested to measures of success during
                                                academy training and on the job
                                                requirements (e.g., foot pursuit, field
                                                shooting and emergency rescue).



                       Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                           September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
        Job Analysis – Adequate and Diverse Sample Sizes
                           Case Study
              Blake v. City of Los Angeles (cont’d)


Holding

The validation studies did not demonstrate that the height requirement and physical abilities
tests were job related.

Reasoning

•    The validation studies did not reflect an adequate and diverse sampling.

•    The City failed to demonstrate the height requirement was job related because persons
     shorter than 5’6” were not included in the validation study (the study included
     individuals from 5’8” to 6’2”).

•    The City failed to demonstrate the physical abilities test was job related because the
     validation study relied on measures of training success without showing that those
     measures were significantly related to job performance.




                     Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                         September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                     Criterion-Related Validity


When possible, the collection of criterion-related validity is
extremely helpful in the defense of a physical ability test or
practical exam.

A criterion-related study “should consist of empirical data
demonstrating that the selection procedure is predictive of or
significantly correlated with correlated with important elements of
performance.”

                                     Guidelines, 29 CFR 1607.5(B)




                Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                    September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                    Criterion-Related Validity


The goal of criterion-related validity is to show a significant
relationship between how candidates perform on an exam and how
they subsequently perform on the job (with higher scores resulting
in better performance).

This can be accomplished through the use of concurrent or
predictive criterion-related validity.

     – Job Ratings
     – Promotional Exams
     – Etc.



               Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                   September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
         Job Analysis – Criterion-Related Validity
                        Case Study
               Zamlen v. City of Cleveland


Facts

• Female plaintiffs challenged the rank-order and
  physical abilities selection examination for
  firefighters.

• The physical abilities test required three skills:
  overhead lift using barbells, fire scene set up and
  tower climb and dummy drag.


            Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
             Job Analysis – Criterion-Related Validity
                            Case Study
               Zamlen v. City of Cleveland (cont’d)


Plaintiff’s Position                      The City’s Position

The physical abilities test did not       The test was created by a
test for attributes identified in the     psychologist with significant
City’s job analysis as important to       experience developing tests for
an effective firefighter.                 municipalities.

The test measured attributes in           The physical abilities test measured
which men traditionally excel, such       attributes related to specific job
as speed and strength (anaerobic          skills.
traits), and ignored attributes in
which women traditionally excel,
such as stamina and endurance
(aerobic traits).



                  Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                      September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                Job Analysis – Criterion-Related Validity
                               Case Study
                  Zamlen v. City of Cleveland (cont’d)


Holding

The physical abilities test was valid since it was based on a criterion-related study.

Reasoning

•   Referred to an earlier case, Berkman v. City of New York, 812 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1987), in
    which the court held that although aerobic attributes are an important component of
    firefighting, the City’s failure to include physical ability events that tested for such
    attributes did not invalidate the examination.

•   Given the extensive job analysis performed, “although a simulated firefighting
    examination that does not test for stamina in addition to anaerobic capacity may be a
    less effective baromoter of firefighting abilities than one that does include an aerobic
    component, the deficiencies of this examination are not of the magnitude to render it
    defective, and vulnerable to a Title VII challenge.” Zamlen, 906 F.2d 209, 219 (6 th Cir.
    1990).



                      Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                          September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
        Physical Ability and Practical Exams: Cut Score


The setting of an examination cut score is perhaps the most controversial
step within the test development process, as it is this step that has the
most obvious impact on the candidate population.

The Uniform Guidelines state the following in regard to the determination
of the cut score:

“Where cutoff scores are used, they should normally be set so as to be
reasonable and consistent with normal expectations of acceptable
proficiency within the work force.”




                 Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                     September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                             Cutscore
                            Case Study
                         Lanning v. SEPTA


Facts

• Title VII class action challenging SEPTA’s
requirement that applicants for the job of transit             police
officer be able to run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes.

• In prior related cases, it was established that the running
requirement was job related. The sole issue before the
court was whether the cut off was valid.



               Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                   September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                                  Cutscore
                                Case Study
                         Lanning v. SEPTA (cont’d)


Holding

The cut off established by SEPTA was valid.

Reasoning

•    The court looked at whether the cut off measured the minimum qualifications
     necessary for the successful performance of a transit police officer.

•    Studies introduced by SEPTA showed a statistical link between the success on the run
     test and the performance of identified job standards - Individuals who passed the run
     test had a success rate of 70% to 90% and individuals who failed the run test had a
     success rate of 5% to 20%.

•    The court emphasized that the cut off does not need to reflect a 100% rate of success,
     but there should be a showing of why the cut off is an objective measure of the
     minimum qualifications for successful performance.



                    Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                        September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                    A Good Defense

Many organizations spend a considerable amount of time and
money on the valid and defensible development of a practical
exam or a physical ability test.


Surprisingly, after the lofty investment in the development of
these exams, some organizations fail to establish appropriate
training for raters involved in the administration of the exam.




              Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                  September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                  A Good Defense

When using practical exams or physical ability tests,
there are two aspects of the testing program that,
when well established, can reduce the likelihood of a
challenge:

      1.     Rater Training
      2.     Candidate Appeal Process


            Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                    Rater Training
Proper rater training is key in minimizing
challenges to a practical exam/physical ability
test.

 Standardized training materials and sessions
 Inter-Rater and Intra-Rater Reliability Studies
 Follow up training



            Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
Rater Training – Standardized Materials

Practical exams and physical ability tests rely on examination
raters to identify whether or not a candidate performed the
activity or event appropriately.


One way to reduce challenges to this type of exam is to have a
robust training program that is required of all raters on a
regular basis.




              Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                  September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
Rater Training – Standardized Materials

Standardized materials can include the following components:

1. Train the Trainer Manual/Materials

2. Examination Rater Manual

3. Examination Rater Video

4. Rater Checklist



             Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                 September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
   Rater Training – Rater Reliability

“When subjective judgment enters into test scoring, evidence
should be provided on both inter-rater consistency in scoring
and within-examinee consistency over repeated
measurements.”
                                    Standard 2.13

    1. Does an individual rater apply the testing standards
       consistently across multiple candidates?
    2. Do groups of raters rate the same candidate consistently?



               Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                   September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
    Rater Training – Rater Reliability
Rater Reliability during the training process:

•   Part of the rater training process should involve groups of raters
    rating the same performance, to evaluate whether or not a
    consistent testing standard is being applied.
•   This process should include an opportunity for all raters to
    discuss outliers and reach consensus about the appropriate
    standards.




                Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                    September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
    Rater Training – Rater Reliability
Rater Reliability after the training process:


Trends of individual raters should be evaluated to monitor the
consistency of individual raters over time. Although it should be
expected that raters will evaluate candidates differently, it is
possible to review whether raters are consistently shifting over time.




                Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                    September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
Rater Training – Follow Up Training
There are instances when individuals have developed a valid exam,
appropriately trained their raters, and then experience problems due
to a lack of consistent, follow up training sessions for examination
raters.


Like any other aspect of a testing program, raters should be
evaluated on a regular basis. In addition, raters should be required to
undergo re-training on a periodic basis.


                Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                    September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
     Rater Training – Appeal Process
One aspect of a testing program that should always be considered
during inception is the avenue for candidate feedback and (if
necessary) appeals.


Often, allowing an avenue for candidates to request feedback or
investigation into a exam administration will reduce the likelihood
that the challenge will progress to a legal one.




                Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                    September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
     Rater Training – Appeal Process
Important aspects of a candidate feedback and appeal process:

•   Public documentation of the feedback and appeal process
•   Clear candidate instructions on the information that should be included
    in feedback and/or appeal
•   Specific timeframes for responses to feedback or appeals
•   Designated group of resources to address feedback and appeal issues




                Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                    September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
     Rater Training – Appeal Process
Developing an avenue for client feedback at the inception of a
program is viewed much more positively by courts than one that
is set up after a challenge to the exam.


Processes developed post-challenge tend to be viewed with an
air of suspicion.




                Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                    September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                         Recommendations
                             Case Study
        Firefighters United for Fairness v. City of Memphis


Facts

•   Class action challenging the practical portion of fire department
    promotional test.

•   Practical portion consisted of a videotaped response to a factual
    situation presenting problems commonly encountered by fire
    department lieutenants and battalion chiefs.

•   Plaintiffs claimed the practical test violated their due process and
    equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding

The practical test did not violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
                 Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                     September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
                       Recommendations
                          Case Study
 Firefighters United for Fairness v. City of Memphis (cont’d)

Reasoning
Fairness in grading                            Fairness in review

Court upheld the use of two raters to grade    City established a multi-level review
transcripts of practical video components of   process:
test using answer key developed by subject
matter experts.
                                                –   Candidates were permitted to review
                                                    practical video, transcript of practical video,
According to the court, this system                 answer key of raters and submit “redlines”
“ensured that the capricious whim of                citing specific concerns with their tests
individual assessors would not contribute to
any alleged incorrect scores.” Firefighter      –   Subject matter experts reviewed the redlines
United for Fairness v. City of Memphis, 362         and changed scores to reflect problems
F. Supp. 2d 963, 972 (W.D. Tenn. 2005).             inherent in the form, content or grading of
                                                    the test, where appropriate




                      Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                          September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
        Physical Ability and Practical Exams:
     Recommendations and Evaluation Checklists

Job Analysis

 Does the job analysis define the knowledge, skills, and
  abilities that compose the important and/or critical aspects
  of the job in question?

 Was the job analysis conducted specifically for the job in
  question?

 Is the job analysis current and based on a relevant
  candidate population?


               Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                   September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
        Physical Ability and Practical Exams:
     Recommendations and Evaluation Checklists

Criterion-Related Validity

 If possible, were criterion-related validity studies
  conducted?

   Concurrent Study?
   Predictive Study?




              Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                  September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
       Physical Ability and Practical Exams:
    Recommendations and Evaluation Checklists

Cut Score

 Was a cut score study conducted with a representative
  sample of subject-matter experts (e.g., Modified Angoff
  Technique)?

 Has the cut score process been documented?




             Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                 September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
        Physical Ability and Practical Exams:
     Recommendations and Evaluation Checklists

Rater Training

 Has a standardized rater training program been
  established?

 Does the rater training include opportunities to ensure rater
  reliability?

 Is follow up training provided on a regular basis?

 Is rater data reviewed on a regular basis to identify changes
  in rating trends?

              Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                  September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
       Physical Ability and Practical Exams:
    Recommendations and Evaluation Checklists

Candidate Appeal Process

 Is there an avenue for candidates to provide feedback or
  submit an appeal regarding an examination administration?

 Is that avenue well documented and publicly available?

 Are there designated resources available for addressing
  feedback and appeals?



              Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                  September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
Physical Ability and Practical Exams




              Questions?




   Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
       September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia
       Speaker Contact Information



Nikki Shepherd Eatchel, M.A.            Robin Rome, Esq.
Vice President, Test Development        Vice President, Legal and Contracts
Thomson Prometric                       Thomson Prometric
1260 Energy Lane                        2000 Lenox Drive
                                        Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
St. Paul, MN 55108
                                        609-895-5160
651-603-3396
                                        robin.rome@thomson.com
nikki.eatchel@thomson.com


               Presented at the 2006 CLEAR Annual Conference
                   September 14-16 Alexandria, Virginia

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Pre Employment Physical Request Form document sample