Complimentary Psychometrics Webinar: Questions HR should and should not ask when “evaluating” Psychometric Tests

Human Resources, Recruitment & Psychometric Tests: The Right Questions to Ask When Evaluating Personality & Aptitude Tests

British Psychological Society Certification in Singapore – Register now to get 50% off Behaviour Based Interviewing and Saville Wave Training Courses

PsyAsia is pleased to advise clients that we have extended our special 50% discount offer for those who register for our Psychometric Test Training Course: BPS Level A & B in Singapore until the end of January. Any client who registers for the Level A and B course will be offered a 50% discount on the Saville Consulting Wave accreditation course that follows the day after the Level B training; and/or, 50% off our Behaviour-based Interview Course which is confirmed for the day immediately before the Level A training.  Furthermore, we are pleased to continue to offer a 50% discount off the Behaviour Based Interview Course for any client who registers for our 4-day Human Resource Management Course in Singapore on 22-25 February. 

Training places are limited and courses are now beginning to fill, so please register asap to ensure your place. The above discount offers will expire on 31 January.

If you are in Hong Kong, you can also avail the offers by joining our Hong Kong Psychometric Assessment Level A and B course in March.

All course dates and details as well as email links can be found from here: http://dates.psyasia.com

Kindly contact us on Singapore +65 6521 3131 or Hong Kong +852 8200 6005 for full details.

New Leadership Assessment Report from Saville Consulting & PsyAsia features on BBC TV

Professor Peter Saville recently appeared on BBC TV to discuss the Saville Consulting Wave Psychometric Personality Assessment. The BBC’s Technology Correspondent, Rory Cellan-Jones underwent the Wave questionnaire and then received feedback from Professor Saville.

The Leadership Report discussed by Professor Saville is powered by Wave Professional Styles and based on Saville Consulting’s brand new Leadership Model. It has been validated both against theoretical leadership constructs and empirically using international workplace performance and effectiveness criterion data.

It combines styles, situations and underlying leadership potential to assess the impact of leadership on people, tasks and the growth of the organization as a whole. As it is based on the Wave model, the Leadership Report can also distinguish between motives and talents and highlights areas of potential over or under-rating.

The Leadership Report has a wide range of applications including in selection, succession planning, coaching or development and in assessing a leader’s fit to their environment.

PsyAsia International is offering a 15% discount on Saville Consulting Wave training for anybody who registers after viewing this video and before 15 December 2010. Use promotion code BBC when booking your place. The next courses will run in March 2011 in Singapore and Hong Kong. Full details at http://www.psyasia.com/saville-consulting-wave-training-module.php.

Psychometric Test Training in Singapore: up to 25% Discount; includes BPS Level A and B & Online Psychometric Courses

View all Psychometric Training Courses

View all Course Dates

Course: All PSYCHOMETRIC courses – online and face-to-face
Location: Singapore, Hong Kong, Online
Date: February and March 2011
Details: Save up to 25% when registering 2 or more attendees at the same time. Discount amount reduces by 5% every 2 weeks until 19 December. The earlier you book, the higher the discount! Full details of this offer here.

Identity Personality Test – New Syle Reports

Identity is a self-perception personality
questionnaire that measures important individual differences
between how people prefer to behave in a workplace setting.
It was developed specifically for the world of work
and is supported by robust research proving its effectiveness
for use in many areas of business and personal development.
The questionnaire is available in English, simplified
Chinese and traditional Chinese.

Developed to be the most comprehensive personality assessment
tool, Identity measures 36 Primary Scales – which
are specific areas of personality related to the world
of work. It is fully validated for making sensitive
selection decisions and found through scientific
research to be more predictive of leadership performance
than even ability tests or interviews.

Sample Cover Page

The PsyAsia logo can be replaced with your corporate
logo if you have your own Identity System. Also note
the PTC logo that confirms Identity is a quality
test registered with the British Psychological Society
Psychological Testing Centre.

Narrative Report

This report is written in second or third person depending
on whether you are using it as a feedback report for
the candidate or for the decision-maker. Text-based
narrative reports are the only type of report available
to untrained users. All other reports/graphics require
a certification.

Quick Look Page

This gives an indication as to the accuracy of the candidate’s
responses and shows you where you need to focus for
additional probing in an interview. For this fake candidate,
the report tells us we need to probe on every competency!
For other candidates you may see “Strong”
and/or “OK” in place of “Further Probing”.

Profile Chart

This is the first page of a 2-page chart which provides
the candidate’s score for each scale in Identity. Labels
and descriptions on either side assist in accurate interpretation
of each scale score.

Pre-Interview Report

This is a sample page from Identity’s Pre-Interview
Report. Personality test reports should be followed
up with a good behavioral interview. This report assists
in this process by providing example questions to ask
the candidate based on their profile.

Derived scales

Assess aspects of the person such as Jungian Type, Learning
Styles, EQ, Team Roles, Leadership Style and so on.
All of these charts come at no additional cost.

The above are just a few examples of
pages from Identity reports. Identity offers a number
of different reports: Pre-Interview, Comprehensive,
Career Focus and Candidate Feedback. Unlike other psychometric
personality tests, clients only pay once for the candidate
rather than for each report generated.

To download full sample reports, please click here

 

To view our Identity webpage, please click here

 

To view the Identity Accreditation Course outline, please
click here

Free Online Psychometric Testing System

All qualified users of Identity get a FREE online system
- so, you can set up test sessions and produce reports
whenever you want – even at night and on weekends!

View our multimedia Identity Sales Presentation

Click here to view all current public training course dates

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.

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 3

Online Psychometric Testing Mini-Course: Session 3

In this session we will explore the following:

1. Why psychometric tests are used and how they are useful. We will do this by referring mainly to alternative methods of assessment.

The short answer to the first part of the above question is that psychometric tests are used because (assuming they are well designed tests) they are a reliable and valid means of assessing people. We will discuss in a future session exactly what is mean by reliability and validity when applied to psychometrics.

Let’s consider a few alternatives to psychometric tests and highlight this issue further. 

Unstructured Interviews

Most candidates who apply for a job will expect to have an interview at some stage of the process and indeed, most organisations will work an interview into the process. However, how useful is this interview for predicting performance on the job?  This depends a lot on the training of those who will be interviewing. Many people who conduct interviews have never been trained. Perhaps one day a boss asked them to go and interview a candidate for a job and it continued from there. They may have years of experience but experience and competence are not the same. Most people who interview use what is known as the traditional interview. It is also sometimes called an unstructured interview. The idea is that this is a time to meet with and get to know the job applicant. Often the interviewer is thinking things such as:

“Let’s see if he has a firm handshake.“

“Let’s see if he looks me in the eye.”

“I’ll ask him what he does in his spare time.”

The problem is that none of the answers to these questions will predict performance at work. So what if I have a limp handshake? Donald Trump (very successful property tycoon) does not even like to shake hands – he’s worried about germs! Imagine him at a job interview.  The shake would be very limp if at all.  In some cultures it’s rude to look people in the eye – so we cannot go assuming that those who avoid eye contact will not be good performers or that they are dishonest or hiding something. As for spare time, what about somebody who puts together model cars or aeroplanes on the weekend, does it mean that will be a good designer or engineer. No, this may simply be a low level weekend interest and not something that would keep them entertained as a career. Not to mention the fact that in some parts of the world it’s actually illegal to ask about people’s hobbies in a job selection process!

The point to grasp then is that often the people conducting interviews have little or no training and are running unstructured interviews that have little relevance to job performance and therefore lack both reliability and validity.  However, the suggestion is not that we remove interviews totally!

Structured Interviews

Research has shown that interviews have good reliability and validity when run in a particular way by those who have undergone thorough training. These are called structured interviews. The idea here is to align the interview questions to the competencies required of the candidate to be successful in the job. Then the interviewer asks the same or very similar questions to each candidate based on job requirements. Behavioural interviews are one type of structured interview. The questions are designed to elicit a high level of evidence that the candidate has displayed the behaviour associated with competent performance over repeated occasions in the past. Another type of structured interview is Situational interviewing – here the candidate is asked what they would do in certain situations. Situational interviews are generally less valid than Behavioural interviews. The biggest problem with getting HR and Consultants to run structured interviews is the need for training. PsyAsia used to run a 2-day course in behavioural interviewing, but our clients in Asia told us that would require too much time out of the workplace. We thus reduced this to a one-day course (see our behaviour-based interviewing course here if interested) but whilst this satisfies the big decision makers it really only serves as an introduction to interviewing. There needs to be more communication and understanding between HR and those who hold the purse-strings in Asia if we are to increase competence in this area!

Psychometric Tests and Structured Interviews

So thus far, we pointed out that interviews can be reliable and valid but that can only happen if the interviewers have been appropriately trained and where using structured interviews; preferably a behavioural interview.  Those using psychometric tools also need to be appropriately trained in order to ensure they remain reliable and valid tools. Assuming training and competence requirements are met for both tests and interviews, why use tests? 

Psychometric tests are able to cover a lot more ground in far less time. Aptitude tests give us an indication of numerical, verbal and spatial skills in 18 minutes if using modern tests like the Saville Consulting Aptitude range.  There’s no way we could discover this information in even a one-hour interview!  Personality assessments can sample and assess personality traits relevant to performance on the job. The average completion time for good personality assessments is 30-40 minutes. There also a few good faster tools available which take around 20 minutes. The amount of information gleaned in this short period of time is a credit to the developers of psychometric tests. However, with particular regard to personality testing, it is necessary to confirm the profile with behavioural evidence from the candidate. So, whilst the profile may suggest somebody who really enjoys multi-tasking, this becomes a basis for an interview question (assuming this is required by the job).

In essence then, psychometric tests are useful because they provide so much more information than an interview can provide in a much shorter period of time. They have been designed by experts using modern statistical techniques aligned with modern personality research and theory. However, psychometric tests are only part of the story and a well designed interview using competent interviewers will add incremental validity to the assessment process. The interview will serve to confirm (or refute) the psychometric profile and provide rich behavioural evidence (that cannot be recorded by psychometric tests) that the person can perform at the level required by the person specification.

Other Methods of Assessment

So far we’ve only looked at different types of interview as an alternative or as complimentary to the assessment process. How about other methods of assessment?

Application forms
We all need to complete one of these to show our intention to apply for a job. Realistically though they are there for this reason alone. They serve as a record of information which the organisation deems important to hold on the individual. Current application forms hold no value as selection tools with the exception perhaps of educational and experiential background. This can be changed by designing application forms that elicit only job relevant responses and preparing a scoring system for the from even before sending it out.

CV/Resume
Candidates like to send their CV/Resume because many people have these on file and it’s easy to quickly update it and print it off on a per-job basis. However, again these are not particularly useful in selection. Research shows that decision-makers are often seduced by smart graphics as well as vocab which sells the applicant by over-inflating their achievements. It’s also possible to lie in a CV, although research has shown that most people don’t lie about their educational qualifications or experience as they know the prospective employer can check up on this. What they do tend to lie about or at least mislead about is their level of competence. We suggest that CVs are not used at any stage of the selection process.

Assessment Centres (ACs)
This is where the candidate is invited to a physical location to partake in a number of exercises with other candidates. Most ACs last a day and during that time the candidates will undergo both group and individual exercises such as presentation exercises, negotiation exercises or in-tray exercises. Assessment Centres have been shown to be highly valid and reliable methods of selection when using well trained assessors.
PsyAsia runs training in Assessment Centres and we also offer consultancy in Assessment Centre Design

References
References lack validity in the assessment process and yet organisations continue to request them! Typically a candidate will not give a potential employer the name of somebody who will give them a poor or perhaps even an honest reference. The tendency is to only offer names of those who they trust will give a great reference. On the other hand, if the current employer really wants the candidate to move on they may fake the reference, making the candidate appear almost angelic! Does this mean we should not use references in the selection process? No. It is possible to improve upon the use of references by designing work–related reference forms that elicit behavioural evidence from the previous employer that is in line with the competency requirements of the new job. However, this may lower the response rate as the referee really needs to think about actual behaviours and write them down rather than sending the standard “he’s a great guy” reference.

Graphology
Most organisations aren’t into this, but an alarmingly high percentage of French organisations are! The idea here is that various personality traits can be seen via somebody’s handwriting. Those traits can then be linked to performance at work. So for somebody that writes with very bold strokes, the graphologist may say they are ambitious. This would be good for a salesperson. However, research has shown a lack of reliability in this method. Not only do people write differently depending on their mood, their culture, their upbringing and so on, but graphologists given the same handwriting to analyse often do not agree with each other about the personality traits of the writer!  Graphology thus should not be used as a selection tool.

Phrenology
Phrenologists assume that different aspects of personality are stored in different parts of the brain and that where somebody has more of a particular characteristic, the corresponding part of the brain will be larger and hence cause protrusions on the head!  The idea would be that you measure different bumps and indentations on your candidates and then project their personality from that. Of course, this method holds no validity and brain imaging tools such as fMRI and PET scans have refuted it.

Astrology
In Asia, people use astrology to help them decide auspicious dates for business openings, functions, weddings and so on. Does it work for job applicants?  No! The idea that people born at the same time, in the same place, where the alignment of stars and planets are similar will work in the same way does not hold any weight. Don’t hire employees based on their star signs!

Psychometric Tests and other Selection Methods

As you can see, there are many ways we can assess people. However each method varies in terms of reliability and validity. Assessment Centres hold very high reliability and validity if done properly, but they are expensive, require lots of resources and skills to run and only assess 6-12 people at a time. We’ve already said that structured interviews are good but again, they take time and resources. Psychometric tools do cost money.  However the cost is offset by the number of candidates that can be assessed and the information that can be gathered in the assessment compared to other selection methods. Don’t forget, an interviewer’s time is costly. A panel interview with 3 interviewers is likely to cost around 2-3 times the fee of a psychometric test and yet will not gather as much information. Not to mention the fact that if you are using the right psychometric tool, it’s reliability and validity will already have been assessed and will be good. Whereas we tend to assume that interviews will be reliable and valid if run by trained people – this is rarely tested!

Psychometric Tests for development, coaching, careers advice and team-building

This lesson has focussed on the use of psychometric tests in candidate selection. However, much of what has been raised applies to the use of tests in other scenarios.  For example, in careers advice, psychometric tools allow the counsellor to offer advice which is based on a systematic assessment of the individual’s aptitude and personality alongside the information already on file such as achievements thus far, previous experience, educational qualifications and so forth. In coaching, development and team-building, psychometric tools often serve as a reliable and valid basis for the discussion. Not using these tools means the initiator starts off with far less information and is likely to be less systematic. Psychometrics enables the initiator to work from a validated model and a holistic assessment of the people being developed and not to base interventions and advice on subjective insights.

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.

What do People Want from their Jobs? The Big Five, core self-evaluations and work motivation

If people are differentially motivated on the basis of individual differences, this implies important practical consequences with respect to staffing decisions and the selection of the right motivational techniques for managers. In two different samples (students facing graduation vs full-time employees), the relationships between personality traits and the preference for job characteristics concerning either extrinsic (job environment) or intrinsic job features (work itself) were investigated. Two personality traits [openness to experience and core self-evaluations (CSE)] were consistently found to be positively related to the preference concerning work characteristics, and CSE showed incremental validity with regard to intrinsic work motivation factors (e.g., experienced meaningfulness, autonomy). Furthermore, age was differentially linked to those job characteristics. The results are discussed with regards to the optimal Person-Job Fit and the practical utility of the personality constructs.

The full research paper can be found here: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/ijsa/2010/00000018/00000001/art00003

Next Page »