Adherence to Legal Guidelines

Respect for and Adherence to Legal Guidelines

For Use of Assessment Instruments in Employment

The Athena Quotient (AQ) (Byrum/Hull Method—Standard Form) is not in any way intended to be—and, in fact, is not—a psychological or personality type of inventory as defined by ADA guidelines relating to such tools and their use, nor is it intended to be the sole or a disproportionate determining factor in a person’s potential employment.  In no way is the AQ designed to take any notice of physical or mental “disabilities” or any social demographics, and it does not reveal such information.  The AQ has proven in validity studies across more than four decades to have absolutely no adverse impact on any protected group.  Our use of the AQ encourages absolutely no disparate treatment, and our focus is on providing information and insight relevant to job-related, results-appropriate performance in the work setting.

The primary focus of the AQ is to better understand a person’s judgment, the ability to make strong decisions in stressful organizational settings, and to understand where this judgment will be strong in regard to organizational needs and existing environments.

The information gained from the AQ and its interpretations is designed to enhance the interview process, and to help encourage “best fit” in regard to present organizational performance needs and present organizational work groups.  The AQ is never in any way seen as a substitute for evidence of skills sets, training, education, certification, and work experience.  The AQ is never in any way seen as a substitute for information gained from resumes, recommendations, and interviews.  Part of the overall hiring process is the onboarding, development, and integration of any potential new employee to a work environment, and the Athena Quotient has proven to be exceptionally helpful in this regard.  The substantive “legal” issue relating to the use of this particular assessment instrument is that it be used consistently, and that its attention never be directed as part of any biased or prejudicial process that is specifically designed to look at any one particular group of people.

In all of our explanations, training, and implementation of the AQ in specific work settings, and in our desire to maintain the highest level of quality in such training and implementation, we advance the highest respect for all EEOC, ADA, and ADEA guidelines, and do this both conceptually and in terms of the most practical application.  We fully and completely support the UGESP determinations of 1978, and especially the formulas of Part 1607 adopted by the United States Civil  Service Commission, the Department of Labor, the  Department of Justice, and the EEOC.