Complimentary Psychometrics Webinar: Questions HR should and should not ask when “evaluating” Psychometric Tests
PsyAsia International invites you to a complimentary webinar that will cover the questions HR Professionals should and should not ask when evaluating psychometric tests. The facilitator will show you the materials referred to in the questions that you need to ask and show you how to evaluate a test distributor’s response.
This free webinar is open to all HR and related professionals based in Asia. It is not open to competitors.
You’ll go away knowing the top-5 questions to ask when evaluating a psychometric test and how to evaluate those responses at a basic level. You’ll also find out what questions are frequently asked but really should have no bearing in test choice. There will be ample time for participant questions.
REGISTER HERE: http://www.psyasia.com/hr_seminars.php
Human Resources, Recruitment & Psychometric Tests: The Right Questions to Ask When Evaluating Personality & Aptitude Tests
Introduction
Those without training in psychometrics can never effectively evaluate a psychometric test.
The following very briefly gives an overview of the questions HR should be asking when contacting test vendors.
This brief presentation is not intended to replace competent training in psychometrics.
What is the test’s rationale?
Is the vendor clear on the model behind the test?
What was the test designed to assess?
Who designed the test?
Technical data: Reliability
How consistently does the test measure what it purports to measure?
Are there documented studies to support for example test-retest reliability and internal consistency reliability? Look for .7 for personality scales and .8 for aptitude.
Does the vendor have a clue as to what you are talking about?
Technical data: Validity
Are there documented studies which show the test is “fit for purpose”?
Is there evidence for criterion validity if you will use the test to predict performance directly? Look for significant and meaningful correlations between test score and performance. How does this compare with competitors?
Is there evidence for construct validity if you will use the test to assess various aspects of personality or aptitude that you will compare to others in the belief that higher scores in these areas will lead to performance in your job? Look for significant correlations between this test and another established test assessing similar constructs.
Other aspects of validity
Content Validity
Face Validity
What about training?
If no training is required it’s either a simple test which may not suit your needs or a test that may lead you to make errors in interpretation and decision-making due to insufficient training!
Who runs the training? Is it an expert in psychology/psychometrics whose competence has been assessed by external bodies (government registration and psychological societies)?
More information
www.psyasia.com Knowledgebase
www.psychometricassessment.com/blog
www.psychometricassessment.com/training
http://dates.psyasia.com
Hong Kong(+852) 8200 6005
Singapore (+65) 6521 3131
Malaysia (+60) 03 2782 6928
Saville Consulting Wave Personality Test: Complimentary Webinar from PsyAsia
PsyAsia International invites you to a complimentary webinar on the features of the Saville Consulting Wave Personality Test.
The webinar will run at 6pm Singapore time on 20 December 2010.
At the webinar we will discuss the following:
- Introduction to the Saville Consulting Wave
- What makes Wave a real revolution in personality assessment?
- Comparative validity of Wave with other personality assessments
- Applications of the Wave Framework (selection, team-building, 360 appraisal etc)
- Introduction to the new Wave Leadership and Interview reports
- Overview of other Wave reports
Psychometric Testing Singapore – Understanding Validity of Psychological Tests for Selection
Yesterday I was watching a program from the UK which fights for consumer rights. A segment of the program was reporting on a sofa that was not fit for purpose and this led my mind back to psychometrics. We’re always looking for easy ways to define some of the more technical aspects of psychometrics and this was a good example!
The sofa looked absolutely fine. In fact, it was beautiful leather and looked very expensive. To relate this back to psychometric testing we could say it had FACE VALIDITY. The sofa looked as if it would do the job it is supposed to do (on the face of it). Likewise, a test, be it personality or aptitude, which looks like it will do the job it is supposed to do is said to have face validity. We assess face validity simply by looking at the test. However, face validity is not very important in the grand scheme of things! It’s important for candidate buy-in of course. If you are given a test as part of a selection process and that test doesn’t seem relevant to the job you won’t be happy with the process and may not take it or the company too seriously!!
The sofa, despite looking great, had some major problems. The first time its owner sat on it, it fell apart. There were lots of flaws in the design and so on. Likewise, some of us may have experienced similar examples with second-hand cars. They may look excellent on the face of it, but then they break down on the way home! In other words, the sofa or the car are not FIT FOR PURPOSE. This is a major problem. In Singapore, we use psychometric tests to help discriminate between candidates and to help select the best. If there is something fundamentally wrong with the design of the test that causes any problems, then the test will not be fit for purpose. It will not be valid, even if it has face validity.
It’s for this reason that it’s not a good idea to ask a test supplier for a free trial to “validate the test” as some of our clients ask! Often this is similar to a second-hand car buyer looking at the paintwork on the car and ignoring the mechanics because they know little about them.
If you are interested in learning how to evaluate the “mechanics” of the many psychometric tests out there and knowing how to choose good from bad based on critical information, please consider attending either our face-to-face psychometric training courses in Singapore and Hong Kong or joining our live online or distance learning in psychometrics. Full details here: http://www.psyasia.com/psychometric_training.php
A Review of Psychometric Tests in use in Singapore
Introduction
Psychologist Vincent Wong carried out an analysis of psychometric tests in use in Singapore and across Asia. In this analysis, more than 40 tests were reviewed which involved no less than 20 test developers. There were several focuses in the analysis which included practical information of the tests (information such as price and practical design issues), construct of the test, report design, technical details and training requirements.
Practical Information
Pricing
There exists a wide pricing range among tests developed by different test developers. In the lower end of the continuum one test provider provides tests for free in their entire product range and a section of the chargeable report will be produced. Obviously for user to obtain useful information they have to pay for the full report and this is certainly a marketing strategy. However in the perspective of psychometric this practice serious harm the integrity of the test as anybody can get access to the tests for unlimited number of times. Therefore it can only been seen as tests for people who are interested in trying out tests, rather than being usable in organizational settings. For more protected tests, prices range from USD$10 to more than USD$120 with some of the providers charge per usage while the others charge for subscription fee as well (usually paid annually).
Design
In this analysis, several design dimensions of the test were considered and they were the split between ipsative and normative measures, the type of scales that were employed, and other practical issue like medium of test administration.
The majority of the personality assessment tools (over 80%) employ normative measures (the type of psychometric tools that compare the respondent with a group of similar others, or the norm group) while the remaining ones employ an ipsative style (the type of psychometric tools that determine the preference among different personality traits within the respondent). Two exceptional case was identified which employs a mixed style, i.e. normative plus ipsative. The reason behind the popularity of normative style might down to the fact that for tests that were designed for selection purpose normative style was the better style to go with as it actually compare the respondents with the others. On the other hand ipsative measures can provide us with better knowledge about the preference or strength within the respondents. In line with this we found that most of the ipsative tests were preference or value tests which were designed for coaching or counselling purposes, although some ipsative measures that were designed for selection purposes were also identified. For the only tests that incorporated both normative and ipsative styles, the underlying connotation of the difference between normative and ipsative scales were utilized and it represented the discrepancy between the real and ideal self of the respondents.
The type of scale used by the tests is actually a function of whether they are ipsative or normative tests. For normative test the most popular scale type used was 5-point Likert Scale (Likert Scale is the type of scale that respondents choose among several options for the one that represent their thought most). 7-point scale was also quite common and there were a few occurrences of 3-point and 9-point scales. Other than using Likert scales, a few normative tests employed true or false scale. For ipsative tests force-choice scale was employed. One of the more popular version of ipsative scales asked the respondents to pick the option that describes them the best (usually termed as ‘most like me’) as well as option that describes them the worst (usually termed as ‘least like me’). Another appearing version of ipsative scale asked the respondents to put the available options into order, although this version was very uncommon.
Most of the surveyed tests, if not all, were designed for completing on computerized environment. While some of the tests can be administered online in an unsupervised manner, there were quite a few that required supervised administration. Whereas there were few test that provided different versions for supervised and unsupervised administration. Having more than one version allowed the result to be checked in a supervised manner after the candidates had passed the unsupervised session. Paper and pencil version of the tests were usually available with similar price of the computerized version although there were a few tests that did not provide paper and pencil version.
Although all the surveyed tests were not designed to be completed in a designated time, timer was identified in one test and it served the function of checking against random or thoughtful responses.
Measured Attributes
Personality
Among the different attributes, personality was the most popular one being measured. The majority of the personality measurements were built on the Big Five model of personality identified by Costa and McCrae (1985). While some of them retained the original five factors within the tests, about half of the surveyed tests restructured the factor compositions based on the result of the factor analysis or other theoretical support, for example one test split the factor of conscientiousness into ‘Industriousness’ and ‘Methodicalness’ while another developer incorporate the five factor model with behavioural tendencies and came up with a seven factor model. Another common phenomenon observed was that under each of the five factors the primary factors (ranges from 3-5 facets, also known as facets) were also measured, and they were actually more commonly used by test developers in report generation and interpretation. This was probably because the primary factors offer more detailed information thus higher flexibility in using them. Besides the Big Five model, another very popular personality model employed by test developers was Jung’s (1920) typology of personality. For instance two of the tests were developed from this theory as their entire theoretical foundation but one employed the original categorical model while the other one developed a continuum model. Besides building upon one theory, many tests extract personality factors from multiple personality theories and some of them measured as many as 34 personality dimensions. Example of the measured personality dimension includes ambition, initiative, concern for others, flexibility, and energy. Nearly most of the surveyed personality tests served multiple functions which included selection, training/development need analysis, counselling and other related applications such as personal development, conflict management and team building. Test developers further added the applicability of personality tests in different situations by providing multiple versions of reports alongside with a general personality profile.
Value, Motive and Preference
Another popular attributes being measured were value, motive and preference. Although these are three distinct attributes, we found it was common that test publisher combine either two or all three attributes into one test. These tests were less commonly employed in the situation of selection but more widely used in counselling and developmental scenarios, although some of them were also designed to be used in selection as well. For tests that measures value and motive, normative measures were found to be more common and ipsative measures were more common among preference tests. Another related attribute being measured was interest and they were mainly designed to be a career development tool.
Others
Other measured attributes included measure of leadership styles, team role, behavioural tendency, Emotional Intelligence, self-efficacy, work ethic, interpersonal communication, sales orientation, customer service orientation, learning style and even work effectiveness tendency.
Report Style
Nearly all of the surveyed tests have multiple reports and they are all in narrative form alongside with a graphic representation (usually bar charts) of the measured characteristic. However there was one test that did not employ narrative style in their report at all. Graphical representations with a sentence long description for each factor were employed instead of the narrative format. 2 dimensional typology graphs and score matrix were also employed for some type of reports. Some reports made use of different colours in representing different dimensions being measured yet some others used colour to indicate extreme scores (for example green representing high scores while red representing low scores). Colour was also frequently employed for matching test scores with a standard or an established profile, with green meaning a good match and red representing a poor match.
Report Content
Generic Personality Profile
For all the surveyed tests, there was at least some form of generic personality profile provided in the report, whether in the form of narrative writing, matrix of scores, 2 dimensional typology graphs, bar charts or broken line graphs. Most commonly the personality profile was consisted of a graphical representation of the test scores on different dimensions with a brief descriptive narrative alongside it. In this generic personality profile the test scores, usually in form of sten scores or percentile were presented. Raw scores were also found in some reports. About half of the survey tests also presented the variation of the test score in the report and a few had an explanation on the meaning behind that. In all cases primary dimensions measured by the tests were reported in this section. Secondary or higher-level composite dimensions were also frequently reported in this section.
Strengths and Limitations
Strengths and limitations were another very popular qualities being reported, although we identified a few tests that do not report them. In reporting strengths and limitations some tests referred them to very specific behavioural terms while there existed some tests simply referred high or low scores in particular dimensions as strengths or limitations. Few tests incorporated contextual factors into the reporting of strengths and limitations were identified and they were more common in purpose-specific reports (for example reports designed for leadership development or team building). Overall tests tended to present information about strengths and limitations of the candidates.
Competencies
Leadership, team work, interpersonal skills or orientation and problem solving orientation were found to be the most popular competencies being tapped. Other competencies being tackled by the surveyed tests included achievement orientation, customer service orientation, management style, decision making, planning and organization, influence and negotiation, delivery, creativity, analytic orientation, coping style and thinking style. Rather than being measured directly in the tests, these competencies were often generated from several primary dimensions of personality. They were found to be written in context of work and behavioural terms were employed heavily in order to aid comprehensibility of the report. Furthermore competency based reports were identified and leadership related reports were the one which appeared most. Competency based reports for sales and managerial positions were also popular.
Interview prompts
Interview prompts were found in some reports. These included general instruction of how to use the report correctly to enhance the effectiveness of a follow-up interview as well as specific suggested interview questions to be asked for a particular candidate. The number of interview prompts varies from three to ten plus suggested questions and some reports even included the expected answer from the candidate. These interview prompts also served as a check or back up of the validity of the tests.
Training (Development) Needs
Several tests with a separated training need or developmental report were identified. For tests that did not have a designated report for training needs, it was surprising to found that the section outlining training was absent for majority of the surveyed tests, given most of them were designed to be used in training need analysis. When present, the training needs outlined (or some tests referred it to be ‘action plans’) were usually generated from the unfit aspects identified or areas that were not up to the normative standard. Simple description about the needs per se was common and a few reports were found to be providing concrete training suggestions.
Cultural Fit
Cultural fit information was identified in a few test reports. This information could include the fit of the candidate with the organizational culture, task nature as well as co-workers and it existed in several forms. The more popular way to compute it was comparing between the candidate’s score with the norm or an ideal profile. One test generated this information by comparing the candidate with the best performers. Yet another test presented the information in light of the candidate himself by stating what culture or environment will be the best fit for the candidate.
Technical Information
Technical information of the test included normative data, reliability and validity data as well as development procedure of the test. They are the most important information to be readily accessible to the public but unfortunately some of them were virtually absent for some of the surveyed tests. Normative data were found to be the most reported information and reliability data followed. However evidence for validity as well as development procedure of the test were absent for some of the tests despite the claim of ‘scientifically validated’ in their marketing materials. For tests that did not provide any of the above mentioned information the integrity of them were seriously in doubt.
Training Requirement
Training requirement of the tests varied from no need training for an extreme case (which was the free online test) to BPS Level B plus additional training (approximately 7 days of training in total). For most of the tests 2-3 days of training for the specific test was common but this type of training would not be recognized by a different test provider. The BPS (British Psychological Society) Competence in Occupational Testing was found to be the most widely accepted qualification by the test providers. Most of the tests could be administered by a BPS Level B qualified user but there existed some tests which required a conversion training (1-2 days long) in order to be a qualified user of them.
Using State-Space Model with Regime Switching to Represent the Dynamics of Facial Electromyography (EMG) Data
series of EMG data contains bursts of electrical activity that increase in magnitude when the pertinent facial muscles are
activated. Whereas previous methods for detecting EMG activation are often based on deterministic or externally imposed thresholds,
we used regime-switching models to probabilistically classify each individual’s time series into latent “regimes” characterized
by similar error variance and dynamic patterns. We also allowed the association between EMG signals and self-reported affect
ratings to vary between regimes and found that the relationship between these two markers did in fact vary over time. The
potential utility of using regime-switching models to detect activation patterns in EMG data and to summarize the temporal
characteristics of EMG activities is discussed.
- Content Type Journal Article
- DOI 10.1007/s11336-010-9176-2
- Authors
- Manshu Yang, University of Notre Dame Department of Psychology Notre Dame IN 46556 USA
- Sy-Miin Chow, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill USA
- Journal Psychometrika
- Online ISSN 1860-0980
- Print ISSN 0033-3123
Tests of Homoscedasticity, Normality, and Missing Completely at Random for Incomplete Multivariate Data
In the context of incomplete data analysis, tests of homoscedasticity among groups of cases with identical missing data patterns
have been proposed to test whether data are missing completely at random (MCAR). These tests of MCAR require large sample
sizes n and/or large group sample sizes n
i
, and they usually fail when applied to nonnormal data. Hawkins (Technometrics 23:105–110, 1981) proposed a test of multivariate normality and homoscedasticity that is an exact test for complete data when n
i
are small. This paper proposes a modification of this test for complete data to improve its performance, and extends its
application to test of homoscedasticity and MCAR when data are multivariate normal and incomplete. Moreover, it is shown that
the statistic used in the Hawkins test in conjunction with a nonparametric k-sample test can be used to obtain a nonparametric test of homoscedasticity that works well for both normal and nonnormal
data. It is explained how a combination of the proposed normal-theory Hawkins test and the nonparametric test can be employed
to test for homoscedasticity, MCAR, and multivariate normality. Simulation studies show that the newly proposed tests generally
outperform their existing competitors in terms of Type I error rejection rates. Also, a power study of the proposed tests
indicates good power. The proposed methods use appropriate missing data imputations to impute missing data. Methods of multiple
imputation are described and one of the methods is employed to confirm the result of our single imputation methods. Examples
are provided where multiple imputation enables one to identify a group or groups whose covariance matrices differ from the
majority of other groups.
- Content Type Journal Article
- DOI 10.1007/s11336-010-9175-3
- Authors
- Mortaza Jamshidian, California State University Department of Mathematics Fullerton CA 92834 USA
- Siavash Jalal, California State University Department of Mathematics Fullerton CA 92834 USA
- Journal Psychometrika
- Online ISSN 1860-0980
- Print ISSN 0033-3123
Bayesian Semiparametric Structural Equation Models with Latent Variables
inferring relationships among latent variables. Bayesian SEMs are appealing in allowing for the incorporation of prior information
and in providing exact posterior distributions of unknowns, including the latent variables. In this article, we propose a
broad class of semiparametric Bayesian SEMs, which allow mixed categorical and continuous manifest variables while also allowing
the latent variables to have unknown distributions. In order to include typical identifiability restrictions on the latent
variable distributions, we rely on centered Dirichlet process (CDP) and CDP mixture (CDPM) models. The CDP will induce a latent
class model with an unknown number of classes, while the CDPM will induce a latent trait model with unknown densities for
the latent traits. A simple and efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm is developed for posterior computation, and the
methods are illustrated using simulated examples, and several applications.
- Content Type Journal Article
- DOI 10.1007/s11336-010-9174-4
- Authors
- Mingan Yang, Saint Louis University School of Public Health St. Louis MO 63104 USA
- David B. Dunson, Duke University Department of Statistical Science Durham NC 27708 USA
- Journal Psychometrika
- Online ISSN 1860-0980
- Print ISSN 0033-3123
Chinese Personality – Do we need indigenous psychometric tests?
It’s perhaps quite natural to believe that the Chinese personality is so different to others that it requires a special psychometric test to assess it. What better way to sell your new Chinese personality test than to state that it is “high time a test for the Chinese” were developed. However, this throws doubt upon the utility of rigorously developed international psychometric tests of personality.
Given the above, we embarked on a research program to assess whether Chinese people differ significantly comparied to others in terms of personality structure and whether personality tests that purport to assess Chinese Personality are able to predict any more work performance than internationally developed tests have already been proven to do!
You can read our research findings it: personality.cn, our Chinese Personality at Work Research Site.
No time to read the whole site? Here’s a quick summary:
Locally developed psychometric tests which purport to assess “indigenous” aspects of Chinese Personality were found to be less reliable than reputable internationally developed tests of personality. Furthermore, there is a big question as to whether so-called “indigenous” traits are Chinese-specific. Issues such as traditionalism or face also exist in other cultures! Moreover, the research has demonstrated that whatever we choose to believe about Chinese Personality, locally developed (Hong Kong) tests of “indigenous” personality add nothing to the prediction of performance at work that is not already accounted for by reputable internationally developed personality tests.
We present this research in a free HRM webinar which you can watch here. We held a vote at the beginning and end of our webinar whereby we asked attendees if they believed that Chinese Personality is so different that Chinese people need their own personality test. At the beginning of the webinar, the majority of the attendees said yes! By the end of the webinar only one attendee still believed this to be the case! We recommend choosing well designed psychometric tests with high reliability and validity. Personality is a universal construct, thus locally developed tests may have little benefit to the hiring manager!
Online Psychometric Test Mini-Course: Lesson 4
In this session we will explore the following:
1. The relationship between reliability and validity in psychometric assessment
2. How psychometric test administrators can impact the reliability of tests
Psychometric Test Reliability
When choosing a reputable test, whether it be aptitude or personality, one of the properties of the test you will need to look for is reliability. We’ll consider reliability in appropriate detail in a later section of the course. For now, think of reliability as consistency. In order to have absolute confidence in our test scores we need them to be consistent. However, we can’t test and retest our candidates in the real world. Despite this, reputable test publishers would already have done this for you. This would have been carried out under optimal conditions. So, now you know that you are using a reliable test (one that produces consistent scores), it’s your task as the test administrator to ensure that the test remains a reliable test.
Why is reliability so important?
Whenever you assess something, you expect the score you get to be reliable. For example, if you assess your weight using bathroom scales, you expect the reading you get to be consistent across at least the short term. If you weigh yourself over 2 consecutive days and get significantly different readings you know something is wrong with the scales! The same is true of psychometric tests. The publisher first ensures that the test scores will be consistent over time and then you, as the administrator, need to ensure that your actions do not make the test less reliable.
Not only do we want and expect test results to remain reliable over time, but we also know that reliability is a precursor to validity. It sets an upper limit on the test’s validity. In other words, if your test is not reliable then it is not valid. Confusing? Let’s use the weighing scales example again…
Let’s suppose a medical doctor does some research which shows that those who weight more than 120kg are significantly more likely to suffer a heart attack. His research shows that weight is a valid indicator for predicting the heart attack. The scales are fit for the purpose of predicting a heart attack. Validity is all about being fit for purpose. Now if those scales are not reliable, they will provide inconsistent data over the time of the research program. In this case would you have confidence in the doctor’s findings? Of course not!
So, to apply this to psychometric tests let’s take an aptitude test. We’ve carried out research which confirms that a new numerical reasoning test can predict the performance of accountants. Those who score better on the test are rated as better accountants. This is validity. The test is fit for the purpose of predicting accountant performance. You will hopefully have full confidence in this finding if you know the test is reliable. If however you expect the test is coming up with inconsistent scores for your candidates, it is unreliable, and, as in the scales example above, you will not have confidence in the test’s prediction of accountant performance. This is why reliability is a precursor to validity.
And why is all of this so important for this course? It’s because you as the test administrator can enhance or reduce the reliability of the test by how you administer it in the first place. Let’s now take a look at what factors you can and can’t influence in terms of reliability.
How psychometric test administrators can impact the reliability of tests
- Factors Affecting Psychometric Test Reliability (C)2010 PsyAsia International: No Copying
Take a look at the graphic on the left. It shows different factors which can impact the reliability of psychometric tests. This applies to both aptitude tests and personality assessments.
Factors within the test
Generally, a test administrator is not responsible for this. The test publisher must design tests that will be highly reliable. Factors within the test means that the questions chosen must be accessible to all groups for whom the test is intended. If a subsection finds some questions difficult based on their group membership (i.e. non-native-English speaking groups may not understand a colloquialism used in a test question), then the test will be less reliable for that group. Although the publisher needs to ensure a reliable test, not all test publishers are reputable or know what they are doing! This is why the person who purchases the test needs to know how to evaluate it. We’ll show you later how to evaluate the test in greater detail. Know for now that you do not evaluate a test or validate it by trialling it on yourself or your colleague as many untrained users think!
Factors within the respondent
Whilst the test administrator cannot control all the possible factors within a respondent, you can do your best to ensure you control for a much as possible. It’s a good idea to think here about how you would like to be treated if you were undergoing a psychometric assessment for the first time. You’d probably like a friendly invitation letter explaining what is going to happen and why. You’d like to know that your data and results will remain confidential and only shared with decision-makers and only for the purpose that you’re undertaking the test. You’d also like to know what you need to bring with you and if possible, a few example questions as approved by the test publisher might help to set your mind at rest. Finally it would be good to have a number to call should you have any special needs that you wish to convey to the administrators before the day. So, when you arrive at the test centre you already know what is going to happen and why, you won’t be overly concerned, you’ll have all the right things with you (e.g., reading glasses) and you’ll know how long the session is going to last. If it’s a personality test you’ll be more likely to be open and honest because you know your results won’t go further than the selection or development committee and won’t be used for reasons beyond the reason you’ve already been given.
Ultimately here you are attempting to control for mood and expectations. Ideally you don’t want these to vary between candidates in order to give everybody the same start line. On the actual day of the test you will go over all of these things again with the candidates in the room to ensure that they are all clear on what will happen and why. Again, this sets the scene and mood, demonstrates your organisation’s “humanness” in the assessment process and provides candidates with an opportunity to ask questions. Furthermore, on the day you will need to ensure that you administer the test instructions word for word and then administer the test exactly as intended by the test publisher. Doing all of this enhances consistency and thus increases reliability. This is essential as we saw before because reliability is the precursor to validity.
Factors within the environment
How well would you be able to complete an aptitude test in a noisy room? Or how about room that’s freezing from too much air conditioning or too hot due to broken air conditioning? Likewise, you need to ensure that the test environment is conducive to candidate performance each and every time. This applies to personality assessment too. Although there is no right or wrong, your candidate will certainly feel more able to make an effort and respond accurately if you provide them with the right environment! So, some time before the session you’ll need to check the room, make sure temperature controls work. On the day, switch them on in good time before the test so that by the time candidates arrive the room is just right. Place a sign on the door to ensure you are not disturbed during the testing session and be sure to silence all phones in the room. Candidates should of course have phones switched off too. Ensure that once the session is over, all candidates leave at the same time so that they do not disturb others. If a candidate really must make a restroom visit, they should be accompanied by an administrator and only one candidate at a time should go. Ensure that upon leaving and rejoining the room the candidate does not disturb others.
(Note: also a good idea to check there is no planned construction nearby and there are no fire drills scheduled on the day of testing. Do this before sending out your invitation to the candidate!)
Summary
By referring to these guidelines you’ll help to ensure that psychometric tests used by your organisation remain as reliable as the publisher intends them to be. By using short-cuts and not following the guidelines you’ll threaten the reliability and therefore the validity of the tests. If you threaten a test’s validity it becomes unfit for purpose which means your company is wasting its money buying psychometric tools!
Interested in learning more about psychometric testing for HRM? Keep reading – your next free session is not far away! To ensure you don’t miss a single instalment, we suggest you follow-us on twitter as each new post will be announced there. You may also like to join our face-to-face psychometric training courses in Singapore or Hong Kong – these range from simple introductory courses through to Certification Courses such as the BPS Level A and BPS Level B Certificates of Competence in Occupational Testing. Not in Singapore or Hong Kong? No problem – we also offer both recorded and live online training in psychometrics! For full details please see here or email us.
DO NOT COPY OR SAVE THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR COMPUTER.
THIS ARTICLE IS CLEARED FOR PUBLISHING ON PSYCHOLOGY1 GROUP SITES ONLY. IT REMAINS COPYRIGHT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF PSYASIA INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD. YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PUBLISH IT ON ANY OTHER SITE. YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO COPY/PASTE THIS ARTICLE OR TO SAVE IT TO YOUR LOCAL DRIVE. YOU ARE ONLY PERMITTED TO READ IT ONLINE AT OUR WEBSITE. VIOLATION OF THESE TERMS WILL RESULT IN BANNING OF OFFENDING IPS AND LEGAL ACTION FOR THOSE WHO REPUBLISH THIS ARTICLE WHETHER IT BE WITH OR WITHOUT A REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR.
