Several documents provide in-depth examinations of individual assessment procedures with confidentiality always seen as essential. In addition to confidentiality, both O’Connor (1995), an Australian educator, and participants in an ABC CANADA think tank on good practice in worker assessment (1999) recommend a collaborative process to develop the purpose, use and outcomes of assessments. This process helps to ensure that the form of assessment is appropriate for the context. The think tank develops their practice around respect for equity, bias-free and varied tools, privacy, voluntary participation and regular review of assessment tools. O’Connor aims for tools that assess on the job “because communication practices are integral to the job” and need to be authentic. He advocates an approach that focuses on “developing existing competencies rather than looking for and documenting deficiencies” (1995, no pagination). He also suggests an appeal mechanism for people who want to challenge any aspect of the assessment.

Consider…

How do we deal with an HR staff person who initially agreed to confidentiality of assessments and progress reports but now is backtracking by repeatedly asking for individual reports? How firm is confidentiality? Who would know if quotes from participants included in an ONA report might be traced back to particular people? How do we deal with pressure to use standardized assessment tools that might result in people being negatively labeled with low literacy skills, especially if they are doing their jobs well.