Abstract

Executive Assistant Work-Sample Validity: Evidence and Limits asks how hiring teams can evaluate whether an executive-assistant work sample reflects job-relevant capability. Occupational and selection evidence supports aligning assessments with actual duties while applying consistent, job-related evaluation. [1] [2] [3] The review separates observable records from interpretation and treats local application as a test, not a universal benchmark.

Methodology

Editors reviewed the linked government, academic, standards, labor, and first-party sources assigned to the hiring-cost-data evidence cluster. Sources were interpreted according to their stated method, population, purpose, and publication context. No statistic was created by combining unlike datasets, and recommendations are not presented as measured causal effects.

Research question and evidence boundary

The research question is how hiring teams can evaluate whether an executive-assistant work sample reflects job-relevant capability. A writing exercise, calendar scenario, research task, and live role simulation measure different capabilities and can introduce different access or fairness risks.

The review distinguishes occupational descriptions, observational findings, technical standards, and operating recommendations. These source types answer different questions and should not be collapsed into a single certainty claim.

What the evidence can support

Occupational and selection evidence supports aligning assessments with actual duties while applying consistent, job-related evaluation. [1] [2] [3] This supports examining relevant dimensions, not assigning one target to every executive, assistant, organization, or event.

The defensible unit of analysis is the actual executive-support outcome and its surrounding conditions. Records should preserve timing, authority, consequence, and exceptions without copying confidential content that the analysis does not need.

Niche-specific interpretation

For executive support, a useful local application is to map each exercise to documented duties, use consistent scoring anchors, limit unnecessary personal data, and review accommodations with qualified owners.

Routine and exceptional work, planned and unplanned demand, reversible and consequential actions, and ordinary and sensitive systems should remain distinguishable. An average can otherwise hide the condition that matters most.

Measurement design and risks

Relevant measures include job-relevant criteria, scorer agreement, incomplete instructions, candidate drop-off, accommodation handling, and later performance evidence. Each needs a written definition, observation window, system of record, and interpretation limit.

Pair speed with quality or reversal evidence, access with attribution, and coverage with recovery. Review missing records, denominator changes, selection effects, and incentives before treating movement as improvement.

Limitations and conclusion

The central limitation is that public occupational data cannot validate a particular assessment or establish its legal suitability. Context such as sector, seniority, regulation, technology, consequence, and available backup can change applicability.

The conclusion is a bounded research design: use claim-relevant evidence to frame the question, inspect local outcomes without inventing precision, keep uncertainty visible, and choose whether to keep, revise, narrow, or stop a tested change.

Key findings

  • Occupational and selection evidence supports aligning assessments with actual duties while applying consistent, job-related evaluation. [1] [2] [3]
  • A writing exercise, calendar scenario, research task, and live role simulation measure different capabilities and can introduce different access or fairness risks.
  • Map each exercise to documented duties, use consistent scoring anchors, limit unnecessary personal data, and review accommodations with qualified owners.
  • Relevant local measures include job-relevant criteria, scorer agreement, incomplete instructions, candidate drop-off, accommodation handling, and later performance evidence.
  • Keep this limitation visible: public occupational data cannot validate a particular assessment or establish its legal suitability.

Sources

  1. National Wages: Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants, O*NET OnLine
  2. Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  3. Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  4. Executive Assistant Salary, 2026 Salary Guide, Robert Half
  5. 2026 Salary Guide methodology, Robert Half
  6. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  7. OEWS Data Overview, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  8. OEWS Frequently Asked Questions, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  9. OEWS Technical Notes, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  10. Occupational Employment Projections, 2024 to 2034, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Return to the Research Content library