HHS Office of Human Resources Guidance, Hiring Assessment Strategies

Document Change History

Effective Date	Summary of Changes	Section/Page	Changes Made By
09/12/2022	Release	N/A	ASA/OHR Policy and Accountability Division (PAD

Approved:

/s/

W. Robert Leavitt
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Chief Human
Capital Officer

A. Purpose.

This guidance is provided to establish procedures and clarify regulatory requirements under Executive Order (EO) 13932 and sets forth the policy for the use of hiring assessments in determining what applicants for competitive service positions within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will be placed on the Certificate(s) of Eligibles. This process is known as the assessment process. To the extent that this policy guidance contradicts with other HHS policies, this policy should prevail.

On June 26, 2020, Executive Order 13932, Modernizing and Reforming the Assessment and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates was issued. The EO reminded agencies of their legal obligation to use valid, competency-based assessments and directed them to scale back reliance upon educational qualifications as a substitute for competencies in the Federal hiring process.
Specifically, the EO directed agencies to do the following:

Refrain from relying solely on candidate self-assessment of their qualifications (e.g., occupational questionnaires). Applicants are to clear other assessment hurdles in order to be considered qualified in examinations and thus eligible for preference and referral.
Continually evaluate the effectiveness of different assessment tools to ensure the quality and integrity of their hiring process.

The applicant assessment process used will vary, depending on the type of position being filled, the competencies identified for that position, the volume of applicants anticipated and the resources available (e.g., time, budget, and subject matter expertise). With these variables in mind, a multi-hurdle approach to an assessment process may not be a viable option for each position. When designing an assessment strategy, the use of a multi-hurdle approach must align with the hiring needs of each OpDiv/StaffDiv. For example, low volume hiring or entry level work may not require the use of a multiple hurdle approach.
Using effective assessment tools will reduce the degree of error in making hiring decisions. Well-developed assessment tools will allow HHS Operating and Staff Divisions (OpDivs/StaffDivs) to specifically target the competencies and skills they seek. This helps to ensure the time spent by both applicants and HHS personnel adds value to the decision- making process. Selection errors have financial and practical impacts on organizations. The consequences of even a single selection error can create problems for an entire work unit. Some selection errors can have Department-wide consequences such as customer service complaints, increases in work-related accidents and injuries, high absenteeism, poor work quality, increased turnover, or damage to the reputation of the Department.

B. Coverage.

This guidance covers the requirements of Executive Order 13932 and applies to all vacancies in the competitive service, with the exception of competitive hiring actions that do not require competitive rating and ranking of candidates (e.g., when using a direct hire authority). It does not cover vacancies in the excepted service (e.g., Pathways, Schedule A hiring, etc.) or the Senior Executive Service.

When the provisions of a negotiated labor/management agreement differ from the provisions of this policy, the agreement takes precedence for those employees covered by the negotiated labor/management agreement.

C. References.

D. Definitions.

Assessment: A valid, reliable, and systematic approach to gathering information about individuals. This information is used to make employment or career-related decisions about applicants and employees.
Assessment Tool/Hurdle: A device or method used to measure the degree to which an applicant possesses the competencies/KSAs necessary for successful job performance (i.e., occupational questionnaires, rating schedules, written tests, work samples, and structured interviews, etc.).
Category Rating: A method of evaluating candidates who meet eligibility and minimum qualification requirements for the position by assessing the applicants' experience, education, and training and placing them into pre-defined "quality categories" rather than assigning individual numerical scores.
Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws: Federal laws designed to protect workers from various forms of employment discrimination and harassment. These federal discrimination laws apply to all phases of employment, from the job listing and interview process to termination (i.e., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978; Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended; Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Equal Pay Act of 1963; Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.)
Industrial-Organizational (I/O) Psychologist: Credentialed expert that focus on the behavior of employees in the workplace, by applying psychological principles and research methods to improve the overall work environment for the organization.
Job Analysis: A systematic method for gathering, documenting, and analyzing information about the content, context, and requirements of the job. It demonstrates that there is a clear relationship between the tasks performed on the job and the competencies/KSAs required to perform the tasks. Job analysis information is used to develop employee selection procedures, identify training needs, define performance standards, and other uses.
Job Opportunity Announcement: A document that informs the public about a job vacancy in the federal service, describes the requirements of the job, and instructs applicants on how to apply for the vacancy.
Minimum Qualifications: Qualifications that an applicant must possess to be eligible to participate in an assessment for hire under the competitive system, e.g., education, experience, and/or other requirements (e.g., licensure). Applicants who do not meet the minimum qualification requirements for the position receive no further consideration.
Occupational Questionnaire: An assessment tool used to assess applicants’ qualifications and experience. Occupational questionnaires generally ask candidates to self-report their level of training and experience in carrying out critical tasks and demonstrating critical competencies identified through job analysis.
Preference Eligible: An individual who meets the definition of a “preference eligible” veteran, spouse, widow/widower, or parent.
Subject Matter Expert: A person with bona fide expert knowledge of the responsibilities, duties, day-to-day functions, competencies/knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), and requirements of a position.
Subject Matter Expert-Qualifying Assessment (SME-QA): A subject matter expert participating in the process of developing/identifying effective assessment tools for utilization in the hiring process.
Talent Team: A team comprised of highly skilled individuals with a strong knowledgebase in Human Resource (HR) policies, practices, and operations.
USA Hire: An OPM ready-made, off-the-shelf, competency-based assessment tool that is available in the USAJOBS hiring platform and used to assess applicants during the hiring process.
Veteran’s Preference: A statutory right that entitles qualifying veterans to certain advantages in consideration for federal employment in the competitive and excepted services of the executive branch.

E. Responsibilities

HHS Assistant Secretary for Administration, Office of Human Resources (ASA/OHR):
1. Develops Department-wide human resources (HR) guidance and policy consistent with HHS and OPM policy, procedures and all applicable federal laws and regulations.
2. Periodically reviews (OpDiv/StaffDiv) recruitment activities to analyze compliance with this guidance, and all applicable federal laws and regulations.
OpDiv and StaffDiv Human Resources Centers (HR Centers):
1. Comply with this guidance, Executive Order 13932, and applicable federal laws and regulations.
2. Identify resources, if any, outside of current HR budgets to establish, as needed, talent teams that support multi-hurdle assessment for applicants as well as support internship improvements.
3. Create talent teams, as needed, to create a multi-level effort focused on improving hiring outcomes, both within OpDivs/StaffDivs and across HHS using multi-hurdle assessments.
4. Establish internal procedures to meet EO reporting requirements.

F. Procedures.

Occupational questionnaires generally ask candidates to self-report their level of training and experience in carrying out critical tasks and demonstrating critical competencies identified through job analysis. In order to increase the quality of applicants for selection consideration, Executive Order 13932 mandates additional applicant assessment tools other than self-report occupational questionnaires. OpDivs/StaffDivs should use effective assessment tools in determining what candidates for a position will be placed on the Certificate of Eligibles for a position.

Choosing Effective Assessment Tools

Using effective assessment tools will reduce the degree of error in making hiring decisions. Well-developed assessment tools allow OpDivs/StaffDivs to specifically target the competencies and skills they seek. This helps to ensure the time spent by both applicants and agency personnel adds value to the decision-making process.

Any assessment tool must be reliable, valid, relevant and meet the following criteria:

Fair and practical – Assessment procedures must be practical and provide candidates a fair chance to have their job-related abilities evaluated.
Best qualified candidates – Assessment procedures should be successful in identifying a highly qualified, diverse pool of candidates who can perform successfully in the position.
Develop and use without discrimination. Candidates should not be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, or political affiliation.
Provide candidates with the opportunity to appeal – A candidate may file a complaint with an agency when he or she believes that an employment practice that was applied to him or her and that is administered by the agency discriminates against him or her on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), national origin, age (as defined by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended), disability, and genetic information (including family medical history). See 5 CFR § 300.103 and 5 CFR § 300.104.

The assessment tool used will vary depending on the type of position being filled, the competencies identified for that position, the volume of applicants anticipated and the resources available (e.g., time, budget, and subject matter expertise). Self-report questionnaires can still be used in conjunction with another assessment tool that measures job-related competencies, without relying solely on self-report ratings.

Establishment of Talent Teams

Creation of talent teams is vital to the success of multi-hurdle applicant assessment processes. OpDivs/StaffDivs may create talent teams consistent with their individual recruitment needs.

Creating talent teams supports OpDivs/StaffDivs and their teams with a multi-level effort, including initiatives such as improvements for applicants, hiring managers, and HR using new and existing best practices. Therefore, OpDivs/StaffDivs are encouraged to create talent teams and set aside funds for assessment tools.
The ideal talent team should consist of a combination of new and existing highly talented individuals with strong leadership skills and a working knowledge of HHS HR policy and their OpDiv/StaffDiv operational practices and internal procedures. This must include HR staff with measurement expertise or I/O psychologists to help facilitate and validate custom technical and behavioral assessments, based on job analysis results.
The duties and functions of the talent team may include the following:
1. Continuously use hiring selection outcome data to inform assessment strategy for critical positions posted to the public.
2. Help execute strategically identified hiring assessment pilots using existing or new approaches and flexibilities, SME-QA panels, structured interviews, USA Hire, etc.
3. Drive new strategies and adoption of successful practices, including pooled hiring actions, effective qualifying technical and behavioral assessments, and shared certificate platforms.
4. Identify and implement tools to automate segments of the assessment process.
5. Serve as the connection point with the Hiring Line of Business and other OpDiv/StaffDiv talent teams to share best practices, joint job announcements, and government-wide implementation challenges.
6. Continuously analyze results of actions to measure potential adverse impact, determine applicant perception of assessments used, and work with SMEs to collaborate on assessment materials (including doing retrospectives).
7. Put the applicant experience at the forefront, to ensure that OpDivs/StaffDivs can attract top talent by reducing overly burdensome hurdles and processes.

Development of Assessment Tools

If a talent team is utilized, it will be responsible for the development and implementation of multi- hurdle (two or more) assessment tools for the screening of candidates, prior to certificate placement and referral, during the assessment process. All assessment tools must consider the following factors: (1) reliability, (2) validity, (3) technology, (4) legal context, and (5) face validity/applicant reactions.

Reliability: Refers to consistency.

Reliability is important when deciding which assessment to use for a given purpose. The test manual or other documentation supporting the use of an assessment should report details of reliability and how it was computed.

Validity: Refers to the relationship between performance on the assessment and performance on the job. Validity is the most important issue to consider when deciding whether to use a particular assessment tool because an assessment that does not provide useful information about how an individual will perform on the job is of no value to the organization.

There are different types of validity evidence. Which type is most appropriate will depend on how the assessment method is used in making an employment decision. For example, if a work sample test is designed to mimic the actual tasks performed on the job, then a content validity approach may be needed to establish the content of the test matches in a convincing way the content of the job, as identified by a job analysis. If a personality test is intended to forecast the job success of applicants for a customer service position, then evidence of predictive validity may be needed to show scores on the personality test are related to subsequent performance on the job.

NOTE: In most assessment scenarios where an assessment tool or process is used to identify potential new hires for few positions (e.g., a dozen or fewer), a predictive

validity study would not be practical. In such cases, it is sufficient to ensure validity through:

Measuring only job-related competencies identified in a job analysis
Relying on types of assessment tools that demonstrate a strong track record of validity

Technology: Occupations that typically receive a large volume of applicants for vacancy announcements may benefit from using technology to narrow down the applicant pool, such as online screening of resumes or online biographical data (biodata) tests. Technology can also overcome distance challenges and enable OpDivs/StaffDivs to reach a larger population of applicants. However, because technology removes the human element from the assessment process, it is best used in situations that do not rely heavily on human intervention, such as collecting applications or conducting applicant screening.
Legal Context of Assessment: OpDivs/StaffDivs should ensure that any assessment procedure used to make an employment decision does not adversely affect any group of people with characteristics protected by federal anti-discrimination laws. Any assessment procedure must be shown to be job-related and valid for its intended purpose.
Face Validity/Applicant Reaction: The goal of assessment procedures is to measure competencies/knowledge, skills and abilities without alienating or causing undue stress to participating candidates. With this in mind, no less than two (2) assessment tools will be used to assess candidates’ qualifications for technical, professional, or nonprofessional positions (including initial applicant review). The duration of each assessment tool should not exceed one (1) hour. This is to ensure the perception of face validity and overall fairness of the assessment process by candidates.

Minimum Qualifications Versus Assessment Tools;

The purpose of minimum qualifications for a position is to determine who should be allowed (i.e., who is qualified) to participate in the hiring assessments used to determine who will be deemed eligible for placement into a position. For the assessment portion of the process, applicants are expected to achieve a pre-determined passing grade, in order to be rated and ranked for further employment consideration.

Screening applicants for minimum qualification requirements is not the same as assessing applicants on the competencies necessary to perform the job. Screening minimum qualifications on an occupational questionnaire is important, but a “deeper dive” is required, in order to address the actual competencies that have been rated as critical for the job; evaluate who is eligible to perform the particular duties and functions of the position (i.e., those who achieve a passing grade on the assessment); and assess applicants’ relative levels of qualification beyond the passing level. Therefore, applicants who satisfy minimum qualification requirements are not automatically entitled to a qualifying score of 70 or more points, out of 100, when a numerical rating procedure is used. Nor are they entitled to placement in a quality category when a category rating process is used.

Here is an example of a diagram reflecting a sample of the process:

For additional information on minimum qualifications and assessments in the GS Qualifications Operating Manual and the use of passing scores with additional examples, see Chapter 5 of the Delegated Examining Operations Handbook.

Applicant Assessment

A multi-hurdle assessment approach is the use of two or more assessments in the assessment process. The use of multiple assessment tools involve the administration of assessments in sequential steps. After each assessment, candidates’ scores that fall below a predetermined threshold are eliminated and should not proceed to the next steps.

If it meets the hiring need of OpDivs/StaffDivs, using a multi-hurdle approach to determine which applicants are qualified for the position and placed on the certificate of eligibles is an option. Applicants must first complete the first “hurdle” of the assessment process, typically an automated, self-report questionnaire or inexpensive online test. The HRS also participates in this first hurdle by reviewing applicant resumes to ensure that minimum qualification requirements are met. Applicants who pass the first hurdle, and thus meet the minimum qualification requirements, move on to the next, more-rigorous assessment tool. This strategy permits for better assessment tools to be used without depleting resources in the process and allows for the best qualified candidates to be considered for the position. Below are common examples of first, second and final hurdles OpDivs/StaffDivs may employ, if using up to three assessments to assess applicants, to determine which applicants will be placed on the Certificate of Eligibles.

Common first hurdles may include: Application and resume; occupational questionnaire; biodata; personality tests; verification.
Common second hurdles may include: Cognitive ability tests; job knowledge tests; situational judgement tests.
Common final hurdles may include: Assessment centers; written assessments; work samples; structured interviews.

Examples of approaches for multi-hurdle assessments are reflected below. NOTE: These examples of assessment tools, scores, or processes used are not meant to be prescriptive and could potentially vary in practice (e.g., using a different combination of assessment tools, using different cut-off scores for categories, etc.).

Example 1: Job Knowledge Test + Subject Matter Expert (SME) Panel Interview

applications in USAJOBS, applicants complete an automated, multiple- choice job knowledge test questionnaire. This test consists of 15-20 technical subject matter area questions developed by SMEs. Scores for candidates to be minimally qualified range from 70-100, depending on applicants’ responses to the questionnaire. Although a minimally qualifying score of 70 has been established in the USA Staffing system, SMEs have established a cut-off score of 85. All candidates with a score of 85 or above on the knowledge test will advance to the next assessment phase and participate in a structured interview with a SME panel (Appendix A sample). Scoring on the interview panel ranges from 70-100, however, the SME panel determines that a score of 90 or above is the cut- off required for applicants to move to the next hurdle. All candidates scoring a 90 or above on the interview are listed on the certificate of eligibles, with all preference-eligible candidates listed above non-veterans.

Example 2: Occupational Questionnaire + Writing Sample + SME Panel Interview

When submitting applications in USAJOBS, applicants complete a short multiple-choice, self-report questionnaire about their experience and expertise. Scores for minimally qualified candidates range from 70-100, depending on their responses to the questionnaire. According to SMEs, a cut-off score of 80 is required for applicants to progress to the next hurdle. All candidates with a score of 80 or above advance to the next assessment phase. These candidates are invited to submit a writing sample. Each writing sample is evaluated by SMEs using a structured scoring rubric to assess candidates’ technical writing skills (Appendix C and E samples). All candidates with a score of 85 or above advance to the next assessment phase and are invited to participate in a structured interview with a SME panel. Scoring on the interview ranges from 80-100. All candidates scoring an 80 or above on the interview are listed on the certificate of eligibles, with all preference eligible candidates listed above non-veterans.

Example 3: Occupational Questionnaire + SME Panel Interview

When submitting applications in USAJOBS, applicants complete a short multiple-choice, self-report questionnaire about their experience and expertise. Scores for minimally qualified candidates range from 70-100, depending on applicants’ responses to the questionnaire. Although the minimal score is 70, SMEs establish a cut-off score of 80 for the questionnaire. All candidates with a score of 80 or above advance to the next structured SME panel interview assessment phase. Scoring on the structured interview ranges from 70-100, however the SME panel determines that a score of 90 or above is the cut-off for candidates to be referred to the selecting official. All candidates scoring a 90 or above on the interview are listed on the certificate of eligibles and referred to the selecting official, with all preference eligibles listed above non-veterans.

Example 4: Occupational Questionnaire + SME Resume Review

When submitting their applications in USAJOBS, applicants complete a short multiple- choice, self-report questionnaire about their experience and expertise. Scores for minimally qualified candidates range from 70-100, depending on their responses to the questionnaire. All applicants whose self-ratings place them in the pre-determined cut-off score (i.e., 80 and above) are reviewed by the Human Resources Specialist (HRS) to confirm that eligibility and basic qualification requirements are met (including any minimum education requirements). All eligible and qualified candidates with a score of 80 or above

advance to the next SME resume assessment phase. The SME panel will independently conduct resume reviews using a pre-determined scoring matrix based on the competencies and task statements contained in the job analysis (Appendix B sample). A total of five competencies will be assessed, and scoring for each competency will range from 0-5, with 5 being the highest score, based on the information reflected in the resume. The SME panel determines the overall cut-off score that will be used for the resume review hurdle is 20 (highest possible score is 25). The panel convenes to discuss and tally the scores for each applicant. All candidates with a score of at least 20 or above are listed on the certificate of eligibles and referred to the selecting official, with all preference eligibles listed above non-veterans.

Low volume hiring or entry level work may not require the use of a multiple hurdle approach. The OPM’s Assessment and Selection website, section Designing an Assessment Strategy includes key areas of consideration and resources for designing an assessment strategy.

Manual and Automated Assessments

OpDivs/StaffDivs are permitted to use manual and/or automated assessments, supported by competency-based assessment tools, including job analysis. Manual assessments are administered outside of the staffing system and then candidate scores are input into the system manually. Automated assessments are administered to candidates directly via the staffing system. Listed below are examples of assessments that may be used by OpDivs/StaffDivs. Other assessments not listed may be used as well.

Examples of automated assessments include:

Multiple choice occupational questionnaires (e.g., self-report questionnaires)
Job knowledge test items (as incorporated into the automated questionnaire system)

Examples of manual assessments include:

Writing Assessments
Structured Interviews
Rating Schedules (crediting plans or benchmarks)
Structured SME Resume Reviews

For additional information on how to administer both manual and automated assessment types in USA Staffing, please contact your USA Staffing Account Manager.

Competency-based Assessments:

OPM describes a competency as “A measurable pattern of knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics that an individual needs to perform work roles or occupational functions successfully.” Competency assessments represent a whole-person approach to assessing individuals and tend to be either general or technical.

General competencies reflect the cognitive and social capabilities (e.g., problem solving, interpersonal skills) required for job performance in a variety of occupations.
Technical competencies are more specific as they are tailored to the knowledge and skill requirements necessary for a specific job.
OPM has conducted a number of occupational studies to identify competencies for many Federal occupations in the Multipurpose Occupational Systems Analysis Inventory - Close-Ended (MOSAIC) Competencies library.

HR Specialist (HRS), Hiring Managers (HM) and Subject Matter Expert (SME) Involvement

HR Specialists, Hiring Managers (HMs), and SMEs all play integral roles in the recruitment and hiring process. Each brings unique insights that are valuable to selecting the best candidates available. The information below highlight examples of the role HRSs, HMs, and SMEs may play in the assessment process. NOTE: Although each role is specifically identified for each process, where more than one party has been identified to participate in a particular process, the absence of one party does not necessarily prevent the assessment process from moving forward. Additionally, examples of other HRS, SME and HM role combinations not listed below may be incorporated into the recruitment process.

Ensure the position description is accurate and up to date (HRS and HM).
Participate in development of the job analysis to identify the most critical competencies for the position (HRS, HM, and SME).
Develop a recruitment strategy (HM and HRS).
Identify or develop assessment tools (HRS, HM, and SME).
Ensure the job opportunity announcement (JOA) accurately describes the job (HRS and HM).
Actively recruit for open positions (HRS, HM, and SME):
- Hiring managers and SMEs can share job opportunity announcements with others and invite individuals to apply for positions.
Work with HR during the assessment process (i.e., minimum qualifications review of applicants and identification of assessment tools used to rate and rank candidates) (SME).
- If the SME and the HRS do not agree on the rating of an applicant, the HRS makes the final determination of the rating and ranking of the applicant and determines whether the applicant is eligible to be placed on the certificate of eligibles. This is used as a best practice for OpDivs/StaffDivs.
Interview candidates (SME):
- SMEs can participate in the development of assessment materials and/or panels as part of the assessment process for a variety of assessment methods, including structured interviews, question development, response benchmark development, and scoring rubrics.
Structured résumé review, including developing scoring benchmarks (HRS and SME).
Writing sample review, including designing writing prompts and developing scoring benchmarks (SME).
Technical questionnaire development, including response options and scoring rubrics (HM and SME).

Talent Team Disagreement

When OpDivs/StaffDivs use talent teams as part of the assessment process, to determine if an applicant should be placed on the certificate of eligibles during subsequent assessment hurdle(s) after the initial assessment hurdle, participants may differ in their evaluations of an applicant’s job-

related competencies. This could happen if multiple talent team participants disagree with each other’s assessment of an applicant, or if one or more talent team participants disagree with the HRS about the results of an applicant assessment that took place during the first assessment hurdle. In this situation, talent team participants should review the applicant’s response (e.g., in an interview, each participant would read aloud their notes of what the candidate said in their response – in many cases, there may be something that was misheard or misunderstood), then have a discussion about how each talent team participant determined their rating for the response. This process continues until talent team participants are close enough in their ratings to provide a consensus rating (e.g., no more than 1 point apart on a 5-point scale). This process helps to ensure that talent team participants are basing their assessment ratings of candidate’s responses on the same information using the same criteria. In the event of an applicant assessment impasse among talent team members, the final applicant assessment rating will be made by the HR Branch Chief responsible for servicing the OpDiv/StaffDiv filling the position. Because applicant assessment ratings determine if they receive a passing grade in the assessment hurdle, in order to receive further employment consideration, ensuring talent team participant consensus is a vital part of the process, when disagreements occur.

Veteran’s Preference

OpDivs/StaffDivs must follow applicable veterans’ preference rules and regulations in the assessment process. Veterans' preference applies after candidates meet minimum qualifications and achieve passing scores on each assessment tool employed. An individual who does not meet the minimum qualifications for a position is not eligible to participate in the assessment process and may not be placed on the certificate of eligibles. All applicants must complete the application process and all assessments tools highlighted in the announcement. An applicant cannot choose to not take an assessment and be deemed qualified or eligible for the position. An individual who does not achieve a passing score on each assessment tool employed may not be placed on the certificate of eligibles.

For most jobs, when using a category rating system, preference eligibles must be selected over non-preference eligibles, except when the position is in a Professional/Scientific series at the GS-9 level and above.

Job Opportunity Announcement (JOA)

OpDiv/StaffDiv HR Centers must include the basis for rating applicants in the JOA. This is listed in the “How You Will Be Evaluated” section of the JOA, and at a minimum, the description of the assessment process should include:

A general overview of the assessment process – this need not be exhaustive but should provide applicants an idea of what the process will entail and what types of assessments they will complete (e.g., writing sample, online questionnaire, USA Hire, etc.).
A list of the competencies to be assessed during the assessment process, including the competency titles and definitions identified during the job analysis and targeted in the assessment process. (See Appendix F for sample JOA reflecting competencies with definitions.)

Tracking Results

Regardless of the assessment tool(s) chosen as part of an OpDiv/StaffDiv assessment strategy, it is important to evaluate the results received from the assessments used. This ensures that any assessment used is consistently identifying the best candidates for positions. Additionally, evaluating assessment effectiveness is also required of agencies per Executive Order 13932.
OpDiv/StaffDivs may accomplish this in several ways, as reflected below. Please note that this list is not exhaustive.

Reviewing Hiring Manager Satisfaction Survey data to examine managers’ perceptions of the quality of candidates on certificates.
Reviewing Applicant Satisfaction Survey data to examine applicants’ perceptions of the fairness and job-relatedness of assessments used in the assessment process.
Reviewing Time to Hire data to evaluate the impact of the assessment process on timely hiring practices.
Tracking utilization of shared services assessment tools such as USA Hire to ensure optimization of available assessment options.
Reviewing Applicant Flow Data in order to identify barriers to recruiting a well-qualified and diverse candidate pool.
Seek feedback from the hiring manager after a vacancy is filled or if a certificate is returned without a selection
Track and review the performance of particular assessment tools in various hiring scenarios (e.g., how well are SME interview panels working for selecting for scientist positions, or how effectively are evaluations of writing samples in identifying candidates with writing skills)
Obtain feedback from SMEs involved in the assessment process.
Questions to be asked by OpDiv/StaffDiv HR representative, talent team members, etc. to hiring managers at the end of the hiring process may include:
1. General: Were assessment instructions easy to follow?
2. General: Did the assessment help in identifying talented candidates?
3. General: Did the assessment process make sense for the position being filled?
4. Scoring Rubrics (for interviews, writing samples, etc.): How well did scoring benchmarks match up to candidates’ responses?
5. Work Sample: How closely did the assessment match the work performed on the job?

By regularly obtaining feedback, evaluating the effectiveness of the assessment processes, and making adjustments, OpDivs/StaffDivs can ensure that their assessments contribute to success in hiring the best candidates.

Policy Impact

Non-competitive Actions: There is no change to how agencies effect non-competitive actions. Appointments to competitive service positions must be made from individuals who meet OPM qualifications, with limited exceptions. Agencies have the option to verify, through use of a passing grade assessment, that an individual has the right competencies to be successful in the position. The use of a multi-hurdle, passing grade assessment is optional.

Special Appointing Authorities: There is no change to how agencies use special appointing authorities. Appointments to competitive service positions must be made from individuals who meet OPM qualifications, with limited exceptions. Agencies must ensure selectees meet

the qualification requirements of the position by meeting the education and/or experience requirements described in the OPM General Schedule Qualification Standard for the occupation at the grade level of the position being filled; and through use of a passing grade assessment that indicates an individual has the needed KSAs/competencies to be successful in the position, if used. Additional assessment for rating and ranking purposes would depend on the requirements of the appointing authority used.

Suggested Best Practices

Below are practices that can assist HRSs, HMs and SMEs in the recruitment process. While incorporation of these practices is not required, and the list of practices is not exhaustive, use of these and other practices not listed, where appropriate, can help strengthen facilitation of the recruitment process.

Work with the hiring manager to decide how to involve SMEs before the job opportunity announcement is posted.
Ensure that HR provides oversight of SME involvement throughout the recruitment and hiring process of the OpDiv/StaffDiv serviced.
Note that the same non-hiring manager SME may be involved in multiple phases of the assessment process (e.g. reviewing resumes, rating and ranking applicants, participating in selection interviews). OpDivs/StaffDivs may issue alternate internal guidance.
Verify responses from applicant self-report questionnaires with resume.
Base some part of the assessment process on general competencies (e.g., interpersonal skills, teamwork, writing).
Provide a strong verification statement up front in the job opportunity announcement or the instructions of the self-report questionnaire. The exact wording can vary, but often a verification statement at the beginning of the questionnaire will inform candidates that 1) their responses to the questionnaire will be verified, and 2) that there will be consequences for falsification of their information (e.g., adjustment of their score on the questionnaire, removal from consideration for the position, etc.).
Place a reasonable limit on the number of pages of a résumé that will be reviewed as part of the initial qualification determination. This limit must be clearly explained in the job opportunity announcement (e.g., state in the job opportunity announcement, “Please limit your résumé to 5 pages. If more than 5 pages are submitted, only the first 5 pages will be reviewed to determine your qualifications.”).

Guidance Information

Owned by: ASA/Office of Human Resources, Policy and Accountability Division (PAD)
Effective date: 09/12/2022
Contact Information: employmentpolicy@hhs.gov

HHS Office of Human Resources Guidance, Hiring Assessment Strategies

Document Change History

Sign Up for Email Updates

Disclaimer Policy: Links with this icon () mean that you are leaving the HHS website.