PPH Symptoms

PPH is generally diagnosed by physical examination.  Typical signs of persistent pulmonary hypertension include altered heart sounds, parasternal heave, pulmonary regurgitation, elevated jugular venous pressure, peripheral edema (swelling of the feet/ankles), ascites (abdominal swelling due to fluid), hepatojugular reflux, and clubbing.

Further testing can include pulmonary function tests, electrocardiograph (ECG), arterial blood gas measurements, chest x-rays, CT scans, and ventilation or perfusion.  Normal pulmonary pressure is 12-16 mm Hg – pulmonary hypertension is present when the pressure exceeds 25 mm Hg.

There are five different types of PPH:

1. Arterial PPH;
2. Venous PPH;
3. Hypoxic PPH;
4. Thromboembolic PPH; and
5. Miscellaneous PPH.

PPH is often difficult to diagnose because the symptoms begin very gradually.  Symptoms of persistent pulmonary hypertension include shortness of breath, dizziness, fainting – all of which are exacerbated by physical exertion.  Other symptoms include non-productive cough, angina pectoris, fainting or syncope, lips and skin that turn blue, peripheral edema (swelling around the feet and ankles), and hemotysis (coughing up blood).  Finally, PPH can result in a significant decrease in exercise tolerance, and even lead to heart failure.

PPH Treatment

Treatment is determined based on the typed of PPH.  Arterial PPH can be treated with lifestyle changes, oxygen therapy, oral anti-coagulants, diuretics, and digoxin.

Pulmonary venous hypertension is synonymous with congestive heart failure, meaning treatment options center on optimizing left ventricular function.  This can be achieved though the use of diuretics, ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, or to simply repair/replace the valve.

Left untreated, PPH patients have a survival rate of 2-3 years.  However, with proper treatment, expected survival rates can exceed 10 years.

Fen-Phen and PPH

The drug combination fenfluramine/phentermine, usually called Fen-Phen, is an anti-obesity treatment that utilizes two anorectics.  Fen-Phen was sold under two trade names: fenfluramine (Pondimin) and dexfenfluramine (Redux).

A three-year study, published in 1992 showed that Fen-Phen was extremely effective in maintaining a significant weight loss.  However, when the patients stopped taking Fen-Phen, most regained their weight.

In 1996, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine showed a statistically significant rise in persistent pulmonary hypertension in patients taking Fen-Phen.  Due to these and other side effects, in late 1997, the FDA recommended that Fen-Phen no longer be prescribed.

The FDA ordered fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine off the market in September 1997 after those drugs were linked to heart valve problems.  Fenfluramine is one of the ingredients in Fen-Phen, and dexfenfluramine is closely related to fenfluramine.  These drugs are manufactured by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and American Home Products.

PPH Lawsuits

Clearly, this drug combination used for rapid weight loss was extremely unsafe.  The manufacturers of Fen-Phen promoted this drug as safe and effective.  As shown in the study referenced above, the drug is not safe – thousands of patients taking Fen-Phen now have various cardiovascular and lung problems, such as persistent pulmonary hypertension.  In addition, the drug is not effective – studies show that patients who stop taking Fen-Phen almost always regain the weight they originally lost.

Upon the release of the information regarding the pulmonary and cardiac risks of Fen-Phen, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America formed a group to seek damages from American Home Products, the distributor of fenfluramine (Pondimin) and dexfenfluramine (Redux).

Estimates of total liability ran as high as $14 billion.  As of February 2005, Wyeth was still in negotiations with injured parties, offering settlements of $5,000 to $200,000 to some of those who had sued, and stating they might offer more to those who were most seriously injured.

According to a 1999 article in The New York Times, a Texas woman was awarded $23.3 million for heart damage she suffered after taking the diet drug combination known as Fen-Phen.  The final settlement amount is undisclosed.

If you or someone you know has primary pulmonary hypertension, you should contact a Fen-Phen lawyer today to discuss your case.  If you have been diagnosed with primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH), please contact a PPH lawyer today for a free consultation.

If you are suffering from dizziness, chest pains, skin turning blue, or difficulty breathing, you may have persistent pulmonary hypertension – a difficult disease to diagnose.  The best step you can take is to contact your medical provider for further testing.  If you believe you have PPH, you should contact an experienced PPH lawyer today to assist you with your Fen-Phen claim.

To be honest, I never appreciated the iPod Touch.  It’s basically an iPhone without the phone.  If someone wants an iPhone, why not just get one?  I had a good talk with several people while at the last SXSW who had iPod Touch’s and they all had a good excuse.  They are required by work to have a Blackberry, but they love the App Store.  I have also talked to some younger people, with less accommodating parents than I, who would love an iPhone, but their parents won’t pay for it.  Damn near child abuse if you ask me.  But it looks like this is bound to be the case for a while, until IT people start loving Apple the way they should, and child protection laws finally protect a teen’s right to an iPhone.

But I have been watching a trend that has me thinking that it may be time for me to look into purchasing an iPod Touch.  The latest reason comes from Chelsea’s earlier post about the VooMote One, which turns the iPhone as a universal remote.  The VoomMote is just the latest in a line of devices that let you use your iPhone or iPod Touch as a remote.  These devices run about $100, which when combined with the iPod Touch as $230, gives you a $330 remote.  Sounds a bit steep until you really look the price of other remotes.  A decent Logitech Harmony remote is going to run you about $200 – $250.

But then there is the other things you can do with an iPod Touch.  First off, you can obviously check your email, which is pretty cool when you think about doing that from a remote.  Want to update your Facebook status, or maybe check-in to a show with GetGlue?  You can’t do that with most remote controls.  Twitter is another obvious feature.  This isn’t counting the tens of thousands of other apps, including games, sharing photos and videos, video chat, web browsing, etc… that you can now do on your remote control.

Let’s also add the ability to control even more devices.  For example, you can use Airplay right from your iPod to send music from Pandora or Spotify to your stereo, so you now have unlimited music.  I have a Sonos system, which has it’s own iPhone/iPod app to control all the music in every room in my home.

And let’s not forget about old school X-10 devices.  X-10 has been around for decades, and with the proliferation of iPhone and other devices, it’s become a popular choice for people in home automation.  With the X-10 iPhone app, you can control the lighting and heating/air in every room, and even set timers for true automation.  There is even an alarm system module so you can activate security protocols from your iPod.

The more options like these, the more the iPod Touch becomes an excellent choice as a complete remote control for your home.  And with AirPlay mirroring  coming out in iOS 5, the benefits will only increase.

Of course there is one thing the iPhone can do which the iPod cannot, take calls.  But this is not completely true.  Just install Skype on your iPod Touch and your off and calling.  And if you use Google Voice, like I do, you can set it so that it rings your Skype phone as well as your mobile number.

There is one more note I want to add to this idea.  As more and more people are dumping land lines in favor of a mobile phone only house, there is a problem.  Sometimes you don’t have your iPhone in earshot in your home.  It’s not like you will always walk around with it.  For that the iPod Touch/Skype idea is great, but there is another option that will allow you to return to the old days of actual phones in your home.  Check out the Panasonic KX-TG7645M DECT 6.0 Link-to-Cell via Bluetooth Cordless Phone.  This excellent phone system allows you to connect your iPhone via Bluetooth, which then allows you to pick up the cordless phone and make call, using your iPhone in place of a landline.  And since the phone system comes with 5 handsets, you can have these all around your house, and never miss a call again.

So finally you can keep your iPhone plugged into the charger while at home, leaving home duties to the iPod Touch.  If I wasn’t convinced before, I just talked myself into this idea.  Let me know if you try this and what experiences you have.

In many cases, it seems death tends to make people more famous than before. Take Van Gogh for example a man whose talent was only truly appreciated after his death. Van Gogh only sold one painting before his death. Unlike Van Gogh, Amy Winehouse’s death fame will soon fade away.

I never believed she had very much talent in the first place. A death is always unfortunate, but considering the claim that she died due to an apparent drug overdose, it was pretty much brought on by herself.

With all due respect and condolences to the Winehouse family for their loss, Amy Winehouse had various issues and incidents with drugs. Most of her inspiration for her songs came from her drug use, and hey that’s what makes a great artist nowadays, right?

There have been recent occurrences where Winehouse was under the influence at some of her tour shows. Whether it is that Winehouse did hard drugs because she was struggling in life or she was attempting to fit in to the music industry, drugs can’t stabilize your life, and obviously, eventually kill you.

Supposedly, Winehouse’s “fame,” was built up during her album Back to Black, which, put nicely, made my ears bleed. I ask myself, “what fame?” What made Winehouse so special in everyone’s eyes; her drug addiction?

My heart sinks when I see how the music industry is becoming more about who you know and what kind of drugs you do, instead of the true talent someone has.

For those who don’t know, WiTricity stunned audiences at a TED talk in 2009, demoing a television being powered completely wirelessly.  To clarify, the thing didn’t plug into a wall.  It just stood there and lit up.  No batteries, no hamster wheels, nothing but air.

Well that air contained some sort of electric charge that gets decoded, or something like that, on the receiving end.  I don’t understand the process, and frankly it freaks me out a bit.  But the end results is that we are on our way of getting rid of electric plugs in our devices.

Now there is a rumor, and I hope it’s true, that Apple will be leveraging this technology for their iPhones and iPads.  From what is being said, the power will emit from an iMac, and the devices will pick up when it’s within a meter.  Pretty darn cool.

I can’t help but think that Apple will not miss the boat in other peripherals, and we’ll see wireless charing units for cars, and other areas.  So imagine if you’re phone powered up by just being in your car, or at your desk, sitting in a restaurant, getting a massage, watching a cock fight, or even doing something weird like sitting at Starbucks.

The idea from WiTricity is that someday all your devices will run of this, from your refrigerator to your DVR and electric car.  Of course people will bring up the cancer issue.  Personally I’m waiting to see who is going to be the first person to hop in a bathtub with one of these things running.

But the idea is pure magic, and I really hope we see it come to fruition.

Therefore, human resource professionals prefer to try and ‘get it right’ the first time.  In a recent article, W. Bridges (1994) “wrote about the “end of the job,” how increasingly work will not be packaged in familiar envelopes we call jobs. Organizations that used to have a structure of jobs now have “fields of work.” As mentioned above, people are increasingly on project teams that exist only as long as the project lasts, at which time they move to another project” (Borman, Hanson & Hedge 1997).  Thus, as the nature of work itself is changing, the way in which people are screened and hired is changing too. 

An ever-increasing pattern in the hiring of new employees is seeking out individuals who are adaptable.  Due to the fact that technology is constantly changing and people are expected to be ‘multi-taskers’, companies are seeking highly adaptable workers who can learn new skills quickly and keep adapting to changing circumstances in the workplace.  The use of biodata, or extensive biographical information is a means of screening out employees who organizations feel are just not a good fit.  Some would suggest that using biodata “[…] may capture dispositional elements associated with person-organization fit, internal cultural socialization, preference for group attachments, and achievement-oriented pursuits” (Borman, Hanson & Hedge 1997).  

According to Rudner (1992), the development of biodata banks have also been developed in order to assist employers find the right fit for their available positions.  However, Rudner also cautions that no matter what types of screening assessments employers use, they must be fair and consistent. “Biodata Banks involve the weighted scoring of a wide range of background items that have been empirically shown to relate to performance[…]The questions asked must be job-related and serve legitimate business objectives. In examining hiring practices, employers should consider the potential of professionally developed and validated assessment procedures. Such properly designed instruments can lead to increased productivity, reduced turn-over, and greater employee satisfaction. Properly implemented, such instruments can withstand legal challenges.”

One of the advantages of using biodata is that it can be developed to collect and measure almost any aspect of information and relevant information.  These can include work habits, personal goals, leadership abilities, social and cognitive abilities and life experiences and their influence on the individual.  According to some, biodata can actually help to predict whether or not an individual will ultimately be successful in their job.  Hough and Oswald (2000) opine that “Biodata theory relies heavily on the principle that past behavior is the best predictor of future job performance (i.e. the “consistency” principle).”  The authors point out however, that not everyone agrees about the consistency and reliability of biodata. “Conclusions about the effectiveness of rational, empirical-keying, and factor-analytic biodata scale development strategies are inconsistent. Rational scales have predicted sales performance at least as well as empirically keyed and factor-analytic scales (Stokes & Searcy 1999). Factor-analytic and rational scales have predicted several customer service criteria much better than empirical keying […].”

Hough and Oswald (2000) quote numerous studies on the subject of biodata, some of which point out serious problems. “Rational biodata scales may produce inadequate levels of validity for separate racial/ethnic groups, but empirical item analysis can be used to produce a scale valid across groups (Schmitt & Pulakos 1998) Whitney & Schmitt (1997) discovered differential item functioning between racial subgroups in about one quarter of the biodata items they examined.” Thus it is possible that while biodata can produce valuable and valid data on an individual, there are cautionary tones about how widely applicable the use of this assessment process can be.  

Nelson (1997) feels that the use of biodata is not only relevant but important in the screening process.  “Biodata is the use of life history data that entails a sophisticated understanding of values, attitudes, motivational forces, and experiential bases. Theoretically, people seek opportunities and experiences to maximize long-term adaptation to their environment; and given satisfactory outcomes, people will actively seek out similar situations in the future, resulting in coherent patterns of behavior.” Therefore, one of the premises for using biodata is that not only does it provide valuable information on potential employees, but it may also serve as a predictor (in some circumstances) for the kinds of people who seek out particular work environments and hopefully, ones they are best suited to. 

One of the reasons many employers see the advantage of using biodata is to assist them in creating not only a hard-working employee but someone who fits in with their vision of the type of workplace they want to create.  Ultimately, they may see specific qualities as being desirable and leading to a harmonious workplace.  However, an important question here is, ‘when managers hire certain kinds of employees, does this not lead to the possibility of a rather stale workforce?’  In other words, might employees be so much like one another that the level of creativity in the company decreases all for the sake of hiring employees with ‘certain qualities’?

This issue itself leads to the question of how important is homogeneity in the workplace?  Are too many employers seeking a group of employees that will be so much alike that there is a lack of distinctiveness in their workforce?  Or, are they simply looking to hire people who reflect the core values of their organization?   Again according to Nelson (1997 “It may be that just as the organization needs different skill sets to accomplish a unified performance goal, organizations need different traits and worker characteristics to accomplish the longer-term goal of survival (Schneider 1987). However, worker heterogeneity does not necessarily preclude the selection of homogeneous traits that primarily serve to reinforce core values and pivotal norms. More research is needed to build theory and enhance practitioner success in recruiting and selecting workers for boundaryless organizations.”

Employers today face a myriad of challenges in terms of screening and hiring employees. First, employers are under pressure to ensure they hire a diversified workforce.  In fact, diversity is not only important but desirable.  A diversified workforce brings a great deal of talent, perceptions, insights and unique perspectives which a company might otherwise not have.  Second, there is the ADA and employers must begin to utilize screening and hiring practices which do not, in any way, unfairly target persons with disabilities.  Employers must understand the ways in which the ADA does, or does not affect them, their responsibility to create an integrated and accessible worksite and creating equal opportunities for anyone who is qualified to be hired.  

The workplace is a microcosm of the society in which it exists. Therefore, it must honor and reflect that society to the best of its ability.  Using biodata may be a way to assess not only who is best for the workplace, but the best way to create a viable workforce for a particular company.  It provides a way of understanding potential employees to a much greater degree than simply reading a resume and using the standard interview.  Biodata opens up opportunities for employers to understand potential employees on a much deeper level.  Yet, there is the danger that using this biodata might also create too much of a homogenous workforce.  Nelson (1997) suggests that this could lead to problems.  “Attracting and selecting candidates whose traits highly “match” the organization’s cultural profile may result in two problems: organizational dysfunction and adverse impact on different social groups. It is possible that if the boundaryless organization selects employees based on its core values, and affords employees creative individualism in the area of its peripheral values, adverse impact and poor organizational adaptability will be less likely.”

Researchers Cole, Feild & Giles (2004) point out that creating a viable workforce is more difficult than ever.  They estimate that a ‘typical’ organization may look at as many as 50,000 resumes in any given year.  Employers today have the responsibility of screening applicants on a broad range of categories that can sometimes seem daunting: education, work experience, life experience, community/volunteer work, awards, publications, research experience, public speaking, conference presentations, success in their previous positions, technical expertise and so forth.  In addition, no matter how hard anyone tries to be objective, we all have our individual biases and concerns. It is almost impossible to leave them behind and be completely objective in the hiring situation.  Thus, employers must rely on other tools to assist them in the process.  

Cole, Feild and Giles (2004) suggest that one of the problems is when managers look at potential employee who is a different gender or cultural background than themselves. While people attempt to put these biases behind them, it is often difficult. Cultural and gender stereotyping is common, even though the workplace is supposed to be free of it.  One of the issues these researchers note is the possibility that biodata may reinforce cultural or gender stereotypes depending on who is reading the information.  

Harold and Ployhart (2001) suggest that it’s possible that biodata is even being manipulated by some potential employees in order to ensure that they secure a position. However, they also state that although ‘faking biodata’ does occur, it’s also fairly easy to weed out.  

Thibodeaux, Cocina & Roberts (n.d.). researched the use of biodata in the hiring of food inspectors. Their first claim is that biodata can be an important tool because the questions can be tailored to fit the specific interview experience. That is, if an employer wants to learn specific background information and how they believe it applies to the job, the questions are tailored accordingly.  Thus, the potential employee is not simply answering banal, general questions but highly specific questions designed for the situation.   Thus, the data collected from these answers is more applicable.  In addition, they note that biodata assessments can be administered online.  This leads, in their opinion to a much higher pool of qualified applicants and at a lower cost than proctoring tests on an individual or even a group basis. 

Dean (2004) agrees that biodata assessments can be specifically tailored for each unique situation.  In his analysis on the efficacy of biodata assessments as a hiring/screening tool, he concluded the following. “Closer examination of the criterion-related validities showed that the biodata inventory tended to predict criterion performance requiring the ability to apply facts to solve problems better than criterion performance measuring knowledge acquisition […] The results of this study also suggested that it may be possible to shorten typically lengthy biodata inventories with minimal loss of predictive validity, making biodata an effective means of decreasing selection system costs as part of the initial screening process.”

According to a report by the U.S. Department of Labor (1999), there is an onus on employers to utilize consistency checks to ensure that potential employees are recording honest information on biodata assessments.  The report also discusses various types of structured and unstructured interviews. But, it definitely seems to argue on behalf of the structured interview as being more effective.  Whichever approach the interviewer takes, one of the key factors in a successful interview is the skills of the interviewer.  The ability of someone to ask appropriate questions, to probe a potential employee for further information and to understand what is appropriate to ask and what is not is absolutely vital.  However, one of the advantages of the structured interview is the fact that it can avoid getting into inappropriate and/or unlawful questions such as asking about disability or other related issues.   Again, according to this same report, the advantages of the biodata screening assessment process are that it’s relatively easy and inexpensive to administer and some validity evidence exists for their use.  On the negative side, they bring up privacy concerns and there is a definite need to verify all the answers.

The fact is, using biodata as a screening tool is a standard hiring process today. Dalessio and Silverhart (1994) suggest that one of the primary issues is the ways in which this data is used especially in combination with the information gleaned from direct interviews.  They quote several studies to advance their theory. In particular, they note the research of Carlson (1971) who studied the effects of combining biodata with interview information.  “Carlson concluded that when the applicant receives a passing score on the biodata test, the interviewer disregards the test and evaluates the applicant using other information, and when the applicant receives an unacceptable score on the biodata test, the interviewer disregards the candidate.”

These same researchers point out that another possible problem with using biodata is how and when the information is used.  For example, if an interviewer has extensive biodata on a potential employee prior to the interview, the concern is that it might present a bias in either direction.  If the employer reads information that they consider to be positive, then it might influence them to lean in the direction of hiring the individual even prior to interviewing them. However, if they read information they consider to be less than positive, they may lean in the other direction.  Another important note here is the lack of objectivity in this part of the process. Whether or not an employer considers certain information positive or not has less to do with objectivity in the hiring process and more to do with personal opinions and ideas.  

Dalessio and Silverhart (1994) quote one study which studied the interactions between scores on biodata assessments and the outcomes of the personal interview.  

“For candidates with low passing scores on the biodata test, the interviewer’s evaluation of the candidate was related to the interviewer’s decision. However, for candidates showing high passing scores on the biodata test, evaluations of candidates in the interview were not related to interviewers’ decisions. One interpretation of these data is that interviewers may not be giving much weight to the candidate’s performance in the interview when the candidate has obtained a high passing score on the biodata test, possibly because of the interviewers’ faith in the biodata test and/or because of recruiting pressures they may face.”

These same researchers raise an important issue about the availability of biodata 

prior to the interview.  One study they suggest is to provide generalized information about the biodata but not the scores themselves.  

“One question the study raises is: Should interviewers be combining interview information and test scores or should they not be given knowledge of actual test scores? The answer to this question seems to depend on further research. A follow-up to the present study could be conducted where interviewers are not provided with the candidate’s actual biodata test score but simply told that the candidate has passed the test. If interaction effects similar to those obtained in the current study are present, then these interaction effects are more likely being produced by the level of the test score. If these interaction effects are not present, and the interviewer’s evaluation predicts the job performance criteria similarly for high, average, and low biodata test scores, then the interactions are more likely being produced by the interviewer’s prior knowledge of the test score. If the interaction effects are not present in this type of follow-up study, then the results would suggest that interviewers should not be provided with test scores prior to the interview. Prior knowledge of test scores would hurt interviewers’ predictions for candidates with high biodata test scores.”

The fact is whether or not employers use these test scores appropriately is only part of the long-term issue.  Companies today, both large and small have become dedicated to using biodata as part of the screening process.  As mentioned at the top of this paper, there is a great deal of competition for top jobs today and personnel managers are under a great deal of pressure to hire the right people, otherwise time and money are lost and ultimately someone’s job could be on the line.  

O’Herron (2005) reports that increasingly companies are relying biodata because they firmly believe that past behaviors are a predictor of future success.  Thus, the use of biodata is not only about learning as much as one can about an individual, but actually believing in the strategy as a predictive tool for a potential employee as being successful or not.  She notes that employers are beginning to believe that pre-assessment tools are one of the most important strategies they will employ in the hiring process.  Biodata assessments ultimately provide them with more information than a mere resume ever can.  

“By doing most of the work for you, pre-hire assessment tools reduce the amount of time that you and your human resources staff have to devote to screening and interviewing candidates who would not be successful within your company. The tools let you discover information about applicants that you wouldn’t ordinarily get just from reading their resumes. Therefore, you save the time you do have for face-to-face interviews with only viable candidates.”

Yet O’Herron points out that some employers might be going too far in asking questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the job under the pretense of using a biodata assessment.  She notes that really employers ought to be looking into the qualities of a potential candidate and the critical factors of the job – nothing more.  But, many personnel managers are beginning to look just a little more deeply than that in order to predict the success of a job candidate. Therefore, one the key elements, in her opinion, is carefully constructing biodata assessments around the job description and nothing else.  O’Herron (2005) states that many personnel managers are not doing this and use biodata assessments to look into personal issues that have nothing to do with employee selection.  She quotes Malcom McCulloch, senior research consultant with LIMRA International (Windsor, CT) who states the following: “The importance of pre-hire assessments is only going to grow,”  His company develops several types of biodata assessments including ServiceFirst, an assessment which claims to be able to score a person’s ability to develop a service type personality.  For companies that are in the service business, such as call centers, such an assessment may (or may not) be able to predict an individual’s ability to handle a broad range of clients including the quiet and calm to the irate and rude. 

The company isn’t stopping there though. They are always developing new products for the simple reason that they’re in high demands. Companies want to know as much possible especially in a world that is increasingly concerned with security.  “The company’s latest assessment tool, CC Hire, measures candidates’ mental ability to learn multiple tasks and skills useful for the job. CC Hire consists of optional modules that focus on attention to detail, understanding communication, business vocabulary and problem-solving/multi-tasking skills. FurstPerson also offers CC Audition, a Web-based simulation assessment that lets you score agents on their computer skills, problem-solving and general learning abilities.”  As O’Herron (2005) points out, managers don’t want to make mistakes because turnover is costly.  The growing feeling in the corporate community is that pre-screening assessment tools can help to prevent this.  

Hogan Assessment Tools out of Tulsa, Oklahoma has developed a series of pre-screening assessments that claims to measure personal qualities such as likeability, extroverted or introverted personality, emotional stability, conscientiousness and whether or not a person needs stimulation (O’Herron 2005).  One of the issues this researcher sees with this type of assessment is that assessment ‘qualities’ such as emotional stability can be highly suspect.  It could very much depend on factors such as whether or not there’s been a personal crisis (such as a serious illness or death in the family), or even the stress of having been unemployed for a lengthy period of time.  People are often nervous in the hiring process and questions that concern personal stability may even put people off.  This brings us back to the concern of privacy (raised earlier) and also whether or not some companies are resorting to asking questions that have nothing to do with the critical factors of the job. Certainly employers want emotionally stable employees but the question is whether or not a brief test in time can predict future emotional stability as well?

The DeGarmo Group out of Bloomington, Illinois claims to have an assessment that can predict whether or not a person will quit in the future (O’Herron 2005).  Although this may sound suspect, this kind of assessment is not uncommon.  “LIMRA’s CultureFit is based on a similar premise and quantifies applicants’ degree of “fit” to identify which candidates are likely to be turnover risks.”  As this author points out, whether or not the claims are true, companies are increasingly relying on these assessments and putting a lot of stock in them.  Yet, it may also be a matter of practicality that motivates companies. A personnel manager who receives hundreds of resumes for one position must find a way to screen out the ‘undesirable employees’ in the least amount of time. Biodata screening is one of the most effective ways of accomplishing this goal.  In addition, they feel they learn important information they would otherwise not have known.  O’Herron (2005) also states that although these screening tools can be effective, managers need to employ a very common tool themselves and that is ‘buyer beware’.  The report on a potential job candidate is only as good as the tool and the interpretation that supports it.  In the end, no matter what type of assessment tool you choose, the most important thing you can do is to verify that the test actually predicts performance on the job. “Ultimately, what you’re really buying is the prediction and the research behind the tool,” says LIMRA’s O’Donnell. “You should understand the validation approach your vendor takes and request that they explain in detail how the tool was developed and validated. The more thorough the validation, the better the tool.” 

Irrespective of whether or not the biodata assessment is valid, employers must still do their part.  They still have to interview the person and use the interview opportunity effectively in order to fully ascertain whether or not a person is a ‘fit’ for the job.  No matter how good an assessment tool is, sometimes there is no replacement for ‘gut instinct’ and experience.  A well-prepared and experienced personnel manager who knows how to give a thorough interview, may ultimately learn more in an hour or so than reading all the assessment data in the world.  Another fact of the hiring process is that people have to work with this individual not some online assessment tool.  It may be that no matter how effective an assessment is, it can only tell us so much and its predictions may only be so effective. And, as O’Herron (2005) points out there are many reasons why people leave jobs not just their answers on a test.  It may be that the company has internal communication problems, a low salary structure, poorly trained managers, a lack of true growth opportunities, a history of harassment.  In addition to these possibilities, peoples’ lives change, sometimes for the better, but unfortunately sometimes in a negative direction too.  People acquire disabilities, they get seriously ill, they become divorced, or they get married and decide to move.  There are so many factors in a person’s life that it is impossible to predict what will happen in any one person’s life. The use of assessment tools, while helpful, should also be used in moderation and in conjunction with other standard hiring practices. 

Kirkwood and Ralston (1999) state that although screening tools and pre-hiring assessments are indeed popular, they don’t tell the whole story about hiring new employees. In their opinion, the interview continues to be the most important tool in the hiring process.  They also note that although biodata assessments are popular, many managers are actually skeptical of them.  These managers continue to prefer to rely on their own expertise and experience.  Although assessments can provide a great deal of information, they don’t know the actual workforce of an individual company.  From a sociological perspective, every company or organization has its own ‘culture’; the way people interact, the history of the company/organization, the reasons people came to work there to begin and the reasons they stay and the indefinable qualities that make a company work the way that it does.  Personnel managers know their companies and they know their workforce. They understand the intricate needs of the company/organization and they are in the best position to decide whether or not a person is qualified for the job.  Thus, while the biodata assessment can provide good background information, many managers prefer to make their own decisions based on the opportunity to meet someone in person and judge them for themselves. 

The structured interview provides the most advantages in the hiring process.  It allows the interviewer to be prepared and focused.  They already know the questions they’re going to ask.  This leaves them free to concentrate completely on the task at hand – deciding whether or not an applicant is right for the job. In terms of the structured interview, one the key aspects is asking the right questions.  Unless the interviewer gathers the salient information, the interview may go for nought. “Of special concern are questions about employee “fit,” communication skills, job motivation, and work-related values. Employers are right to doubt whether other sources of information, such as resumes, references, and personality tests, can answer such questions” (Kirkwood and Ralston 1999).

The interview is also the beginning of a new working relationship.  The way an interviewee is treated in the interview process is probably a good indicator of the way they will be treated by the company/organization.  If an interviewer takes the time to write down meaningful questions that will elicit important information, they not only demonstrate respect for the interviewee but demonstrate that they take the process of hiring new employees seriously.  It is the time to shape the way this new person is accepted and integrated into the company/organization.  A structured interview is valuable tool in this process. 

Kirkwood and Ralston (1999) also stress the fact that the structured, intelligent interview serves more than just as a means to meet someone.  It is an opportunity to truly get to know someone albeit on a limited basis.  They point out that many interviewees ‘act out’ their interviews rather than being themselves and answering honestly.  Many interviewees seem to believe that if they give a good ‘performance’ they can erase any personnel manager’s doubts or concerns.  But, these authors note that a prepared interviewer will be able to weed out the actors from the true potential employees.  

“While naive interviewers may fail to recognize the theatrical quality of applicant behavior, trained interviewers may focus only on this quality and seek to penetrate interviewee performances. Paradoxically, however, efforts to outsmart applicants invite applicant performances that are hard to interpret. These efforts also create a communication setting unlike that in the workplace, and they deprive applicants of information they need to make wise employment decisions. Finally, we argue that interviewers can improve the value of selection interviews for all parties by helping applicants give their best possible performances, practicing conscious transparency, and creating a communication situation more like those on the job.”

The structured interview can assist personnel managers in a number of specific ways.  First, the prepared interviewer will decide exactly what kinds of questions to ask and how long to keep an applicant in an interview.  This can help to determine a number of factors – the ability of the person to answer specific questions that are geared towards working in that company/organization; the ability of the person to handle the pressure of the interview, the ability of the person to cope with a prolonged situation as opposed to a brief, unstructured interview and the person’s ability to provide information in a coherent, intelligent manner. 

A structured interview will also reveal something of the company/organization to the applicant.  First, it reveals that the personnel manager took the time to prepare. This means, at least to a degree, that they take the hiring process seriously.  It also suggests (again, at least to a degree) a certain level of organizational and time management skills.  There is no doubt that an applicant would gain a very different impression of a company/organization in an interview where the interviewer is flying by the seat of their pants, and one where the interviewer is calm and well-prepared.  While applicants are performing in the interview, to some extent so is the interviewer.  They both want to present a good impression to the other. One wants to attract a good job, while the other wants to attract good employees.  Preparation will pay off on both ends.  “If they follow some experts’ advice, interviewers will employ strategic questions and structured interviewing methods designed to penetrate applicants’ interviewing personae. Kador (1997) tells employers that unless they put as much preparation into interviews as the candidates, they will get rehearsed answers.”

To conduct an intelligent, and respectful interview, interviewers must not only develop a structured interview but a meaningful one. This entails creating thoughtful questions which will, in turn, elicit thoughtful responses.  Interviewers must be careful not to try and ‘outsmart’ or ‘outwit’ applicants as this leads into a situation where both parties are merely playing games. Again, according to Kirkwood and Ralston (1997), the interviewer must take control of the process by using the time wisely.  It is the responsibility of the interviewer to keep the process on time and on track.  An interview that gets out of control and leads into inappropriate or meaningless discussions is the responsibility of the interviewer.  Author, Stephanie Clifford (2006) concurs.  “A typical interview–unstructured, rambling, unfocused–tells the interviewer almost nothing about job candidates, other than how they seem during a couple of meetings in a conference room.”

Jennings (2000) writes that hiring employees from Generation X is actually a completely different process than hiring people in the past.  She writes that they are very interview savvy.  They know what they want and they’re prepared.  In order to impress them, the interviewer has to be prepared too.  Thus, interviewers must be prepared to handle many different types of applicants.  The applicant pool is completely different than in the past.  Baby-boomers seeking jobs are obviously looking for different things than those from Generation X and their values are different too.  An interviewer who is prepared will be able to deftly handle both.  

Reynolds and Polansky (1997) agree. They are also among those who suggest that although pre-screening assessments are helpful, they don’t and can’t tell the whole story. Their research suggests that thoughtful questions will, in the end, elicit the most meaningful responses. “We believe pre-interview paper screening does not provide the breadth of understanding needed to evaluate a candidate. By meeting candidates, we can evaluate not only their vision of education, understanding of pedagogy, and ability to communicate, but we also can measure their excitement and the light in their eyes.”  In their opinion, three of the most valuable questions an interviewer can ask are; what skills the applicant will bring to the company/organization, describe a meaningful strategy or technique they’ve used successfully in the past and how to deal with a hypothetical issue. They state that these kinds of questions not only force applicants to think on their feet, but they are ones that are very hard to create ‘fake’ answers to.  

Clifford (2006) also points out that specific types of questions will lead the interview down an important path.  “Structured interviews with behaviorally based questions really allow us to drill down… Behavioral interviews have almost triple the correlation of conventional interviews with job success. Behavioral interviewing involves, by definition, a group of interviewers defining qualities needed for a job, asking candidates to give past examples of how they’ve demonstrated those qualities, asking the same questions of each candidate, and taking notes throughout.”

Another strategy that is often successful is the group interview. This puts the applicant under greater pressure but it also reveals a great deal more about them.  It definitely demonstrates their ability to think and behave under pressure; their ability to answer questions from a broad range of perspectives; to interact with a group of people they don’t know and be at ease in the situation and impress more than one person at a time.  This type of structured interview may also be the most difficult to arrange as it involves many peoples’ schedules and interests but is often one of the most successful in determining an appropriate employee.  These are most often used by universities and colleges in order to hire faculty and high level administrators. 

Kirkwood and Ralson (1997) point out that an effective interview will invite questions from the applicant.  Their research reveals that the questions an applicant asks are as important as the questions they give to the interviewer’s questions.  

Another aspect of the interview that many do not pay attention to is doing everything possible to keep the interview process fair and equitable. It is not unusual these days for a disappointed applicant to sue a company/organization over what they deem to be an unfair interview. This is another reason why the structured interview is an advantage. The interviewer prepares the proper questions, taking care not to ask anything that is inappropriate or illegal. As well, they should ask the same questions of every single applicant. In this way, it is less likely that someone will have reason to complain about the interview process. 

Jennings (2000) states that a good interviewer knows what they should offer at what point in the process.  She cautions employers not to offer ‘the farm’ simply because they feel they’ve met an exceptional employee.  Jennings suggests that a qualified interviewer is also a good negotiator.  They know how to discuss the various benefits and opportunities their company/organization has to offer and the appropriate time to make these offers.  Deals should be made carefully and only after references have been fully checked and it’s clear that the right person has been selected. 

Kirkwood and Ralson (1997) say that in the end, interviewers should invite ‘meaningful performances’ from their applicants. They should endeavor to elicit thoughtful responses and try to bring out the best in their applicants and not the worst.  In the final analysis, the interviewer should attempt to create the interview as an ‘authentic dialogue’ which would not be dissimilar to a conversation they might have as manager and employee. 

There is no doubt that hiring employees today can be somewhat of a minefield. Employers have legislative issues to consider, the needs of a diversified workforce and the pressure to hire the right people at the right time.  Using biodata screening assessments in conjunction with thoughtful, well-structured interviews gives employers the opportunity to get to know their applicants, at least to a degree.  Perhaps there is no such thing as the perfect way to hire people, but this is definitely a positive combination provided that it is used appropriately and with care.  

Bibliography

Borman, Walter, C., Jerry W. Hedge & Mary Ann Hanson. (1997). “Personnel Selection”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 299-335. 

Cole, Michael L., Hubert S. Field & William S. Giles.  (2004). “Interaction of Recruiter and Applicant Gender in Resume Evaluation: A Field Study”, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, Vol. 51, pp. 597-613.

Dalessio, Anthony T. & Todd A. Silverhart.  (1994). “Combining Biodata Test and Interview Information: Predicting Decisions and Performance Criteria”,  Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 1-15.

Dean, Michelle A.  (2004).  “An Assessment of Biodata Predictive Ability Across Multiple Performance Criteria, Applied H.M.R. Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-2.

Hough, Leaetta, M. & Frederich L. Oswald. (2000)/ “PERSONNEL SELECTION: Looking toward the Future-Remembering the Past. Contributors”, Annual Review of Psychology, pp. 631-664.

Jennings, Andrea T.   (2000).  “Hiring Generation X”, Journal of Accountancy, Vol.189, No. 2, pp. 55-62.

Kirkwood, William G. & Steven M. Ralson.  (1999).  “Inviting Meaningful Applicant Performances in Employment Interviews” The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 36, No.1,  pp. 55-73.

Maden, Daniel M.  (1995).  “Observations and Comments on ‘Reinventing Government.”, Public Personnel Management,Vol. 24 No.1, pp. 113+-124.

Nelson, Jodi Barnes.  (1997). “The boundaryless organization: implications for job analysis, recruitment and selection”,  Human Resource Planning,  Vol. 20, No. 4,  pp.39-54.

O’Herron, Jennifer.  (2005). “How to Predict the Future”, Published for the International Center Management Institute. Retrieved August 30, 2006 from: http://www.callcentermagazine.com/shared/article/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=59300858. 

Polansky, Harvey & John Reynolds.  (1997).  “Inquire Intensively When Hiring Staff”, School Administrator, Vol. 54, No. 7, pp. 37-40. 

Rudner, Lawrence M.  (1992). “Pre-Employment Testing and Employee Productivity”,Public Personnel Management, Vol.21. No. 2, pp. 133-148.

Thibodeaux, Henry F., Jeffrey M. Cocina & Alix L. Roberts.  (n.d.).  “Development and Implementation of a Web-Based Biodata Inventory for Food Inspectors”, United States Office of Personnel Management. 

U. S. Department of Labor – Employment and Training Administration. (1999).  “Testing and Assessment: An Employer’s Guide to Good Practices”.

Synthetic diamonds are also referred to as cultured diamonds, lab-created diamonds, and lab-grown diamonds.  These diamonds are processed to have the exact chemical structure as a natural diamond, and only diamond experts can tell the difference between the two types.  Special equipment is used to analyze the crystal make up of diamonds to determine which ones are the “real thing” and which ones are man-made.

The High Pressure High Temperature processing method for synthetic diamonds is the most commonly used today.  This involves presses that exert enormous pressures of up to 500,000 pounds on a microscopic diamond chip.  When the diamond grain is exposed to this pressure along with temperatures of around 3,000⁰F, the grain grows slowly into a synthetic diamond of about 2-1/2 carats.  This simulates the natural formation of diamonds, which requires carbon, extreme heat, extreme pressure, and time, up to millions of years.  The High Pressure High Temperature process can produce a synthetic diamond in as little as four days.

Another method for producing synthetic diamonds is Chemical Vapor Deposition, or CVD.  Introduced in the 1980’s the Chemical Vapor Deposition process introduces a chemical vapor into an atmosphere that supports the creation of carbon plasma.  The carbon atoms that are formed fall onto a surface where they continue to collect and eventually form a synthetic diamond.  This process normally takes from two to four weeks.

These synthetic diamond processes produce diamonds that appear to be identical to naturally formed diamonds.  These processed diamonds match the chemical and physical attributes of diamonds, making it difficult to differentiate before synthetic and natural diamonds.  The Federal Trade Commission requires a laser inscription for natural diamonds sold in the United States to decrease the number of synthetic diamonds promoted and sold as natural diamonds.

By introducing various elements, such as nitrogen, into the synthetic diamond process, manufacturers can create synthetic diamonds of varying colors.  There is a consumer demand for these synthetic diamonds, because colored natural diamonds are very rare and expensive.  

The Gemological Institute of America instituted the practice of grading synthetic diamonds with the same categories used for natural diamonds:  color, cut, clarity, and carat.  This sparked more interest in synthetic diamonds among consumers, but also led to protests from the higher class jewelers, such as Tiffany’s. 

Synthetic diamonds sell for much lower prices than natural diamonds do, sometimes more than fifteen percent lower.  They are an acceptable substitution for natural diamonds for those that cannot reasonably pay the price for a natural diamond.  Synthetic diamonds are a true find for consumers that are not concerned with authenticity and are satisfied with jewelry that has the look of a real diamond without the high price tag.  

Considering the chemical structure, physical properties, and appearance of synthetic diamonds, they are indeed “real.”  Whether or not the consumer believes they are real is purely a matter of personal taste.

Alternative Uses of Synthetic Diamonds

When you consider the possibility of creating inexpensive materials that have the remarkable properties of diamonds, it’s really quite amazing.  The scientific applications of diamonds is far reaching.  Scientist here in the United States have recently discovered a new use for diamond nanocrystals, which can be used in a microscope to see objects as small as  a single molecule.  This will lead to the ability to study a single atom.

Synthetic diamonds could also have a huge impact in the computer industry.  Diamonds consist of a rigid carbon atom crystal structure that makes it near impossible to destroy any of its single atoms.  This is what makes diamonds the strongest substance in the world.  This also helps in the dispersion of heat.  The end result is that some scientist feel strongly that we can someday run an entire computer processor and memory off a single diamond.  In other words, it’s quite possible that someday your iPhone 12.0 may be encased in, and comprised mostly of a single diamond.  That’s more bling than a Vertu phone.

This is just a couple of the great ways synthetic diamonds will make huge contributions to technology.  We haven’t even touched on the idea of inexpensive diamond dust.  

There are also social ramifications of synthetic diamonds.  What happens if consumers start to prefer the perfect nature of synthetic diamonds over organic diamonds?  Where does the leave the economy of some countries who rely greatly on the diamond export trade?  The idea of blood diamonds, or conflict diamonds is of course horrible, but there are plenty more people making legitimate money from diamonds that will now lose that revenue, or at least see it drop with lack of demand.  But that sounds like a whole other blog post.

Other Stories:

Kate Winslet Weight Loss Secrets

 The unexpected aspect of this is that the two species that have evolved were not separated geographically.  Geographic separation was thought to be a necessary driving force in the evolution of species.  In this case however, there was no geographic separation.  The two species are living in the same body of water.  This divergence is the result of ever increasing pollution and the results of changes in climate. The original species had been forced to adapt the way that its vision functions.  This eventually led to a new and separate species. Observations regarding cichlids in Lake Victoria make provisions for evidence of an unusual form of evolution called ‘sympatric specification’ that takes place without a population group’s physical separation.

The ‘Pundamilia Nyererei’ is native to the regions in the MWanza Gulf area of Lake Victoria.  This area is comprised of several islands and in each region the fish are varied by color.  In a report published by the journal “Nature”, researchers from a technological institute in Tokyo along with researchers from the ‘Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology’ have observed the Cichlid evolving into an entirely new species that has never been seen before.  This new species is adapted to the changes in light at various depths of the lake. 

Scientists have also stated that it isn’t simply over-fishing and pollution alone that are responsible for the disappearance of certain fish species in Lake Victoria.  And it is not these factors alone that are the cause of the evolution of the other species. The report goes on to summarize that new and different species might be born due to vision differences as well as the things seen by the fish, at least in regard to this particular lake in Africa.  In fact, the latter reason proves to be the driving force which caused the fish to evolve into a novel species.

 The above-mentioned phenomenon might explain the rapid losses relating to pundamilia in Lake Victoria over the last 30 years. Studies have said that eye adaptations also affect mating patterns. Researchers had a look at 2 different species, each being conspicuous due to their blue or red colors. They went on to determine via lab experiments that some genetic mutations aided certain fish which live in greater depths.  The mutation made a pigment in their eyes that is more sensitive with respect to red light, whereas shallow-water fish are more sensitive to blue light.

 Scientists have stated the theory of evolution as being ‘survival of the fittest’. In a way, they are right. Amongst the fish in the lakes of Africa only the fittest survive.  Where they are not fit, they change.