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.

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.

In this session we will explore the following:

1. Computer-based scoring of psychometric tests
2. Hand-scoring of psychometric tests
3. Norming of test results
4. The link between scoring of tests and reliability

Converting raw scores to standardised scores and using representative norms will be covered in a later session.

Once a psychometric test has been properly administered, it needs to be scored. Depending on the test chosen, you may have a few options.

a. You can opt for computer-based scoring.

This would work if you had administered the test using computer software or if you had asked your candidate to complete an online test. For online tests, this option is good because it is less likely to involve scoring errors! Your candidate completes the test online and then the system immediately and automatically scores the test. There is no additional input required and hence less chance for error. This pre-supposes the publisher has used the correct scoring algorithms of course. Whilst most reputable test publishers will, we do know of one who had an error in a test battery that was not spotted until one of their distributors pointed out that his partner had done poorly on a test for which she was a subject matter expert!!

If you administer the test to your candidate using desktop software, you should be able to automatically score it in the same way as above.

b. You can opt for hand-scoring or a bureau service or keyed input followed by computer-scoring. You are most likely to use this option if you administered the test to your candidate using hard-copy test booklets and answer sheets.

Firstly, you’ll need to double-check the answer sheets to ensure that there are no irregularities. Ensure that it’s obvious which answer the respondent selected. Be careful with any “blobs” that may have appeared from ink or pencil smudges etc. If a respondent has changed their mind after selecting a response and has crossed it out, ensure that you only use the most recent response in scoring.

For hand-scoring using a scoring key, you’ll next need to align the scoring key with the answer sheet. The exact requirements will vary based on the test you are using, so ensure that you read and fully understand the instructions provided by the test publisher.

Once you have scored the responses, double-check your scoring. You then need to record the score. The score you calculate at this point is called the RAW SCORE. On its own, a raw score means nothing. If I tell you that you scored 54 on a numerical reasoning test or 75 on the extraversion scale of a personality assessment, you’ll need to ask me more questions before you truly understand your score. The most important question to ask would be how your score compared to others. The comparison of your score with others is called norming.

It is called norming because we compare a candidate’s score to a group of others (called the norm group) who completed the test in the past. To undertake this comparison, you can do it by way of a simple calculation or through the use of norm tables either developed by yourself or, more usually, supplied by the test publisher.

Norm tables allow us to use a standard vocabulary for expressing a candidate’s score in relation to others who have taken the test and it is for this reason that we call your new score a standardised score. A standardised score is simply your candidate’s raw score, compared with the norm group and expressed in terms of how the candidate scored in relation to others. We’ll consider standardised scores in more detail in a later lesson. You’ll see by now that your objective is to calculate the candidate’s standard score as this is the way to achieve maximum meaning. If you opt for paper and pencil tests and hand-scoring, the process can be lengthy. So are there other options?

We have already seen above that we can simply have the candidate complete an online test. However, you may not wish to do this if there are many candidates. This is because you will need as many computers as candidates if you are going to supervise them. If you are using an unsupervised test, the candidate can complete on their own PC, but you may be concerned about possible cheating and so on. This is why you may end up using paper and pencil tests (in a supervised environment). However, there is an alternative to arduous hand-scoring if you have used paper and pencil tests.

You can use the bureau service of your psychometric test distributor. You just need to check that the answer sheet is properly completed, clear and free from any irregularities and then send the answer sheet to the distributor by fax or scanned email. The bureau service will then score the test for you and send you a report.

Furthermore, you may have another option yet. If you have access to a computer or online test system, you can probably also enter the candidate’s responses to each question into the system and have the system produce the report. This is essentially what the bureau service above does for you. Doing it yourself should work out cheaper. Do be careful when you transpose the responses though – accuracy is far more important than speed unless you want to invalidate the whole process!!

Self-scoring answer sheets: Some psychometric tests are supplied with self-scoring answer sheets. These are much easier to use than non-self-scoring answer sheets. In this case you usually need to open up the answer sheet by tearing off some perforated card. Inside the answer sheet, the candidate’s responses will have been duplicated via carbon or similar onto a scoring card. Usually, you add up the number of responses (often black circles) that appear inside a circle. Those outside of a circle represent incorrect answers so don’t get counted. Once you’ve added up correct responses, you have your raw score. Slightly different procedures obviously apply for personality assessments and fewer personality assessments provide self-scoring answer sheets due to their scoring complexity. When using self-scoring answer sheets you need to be especially careful to ensure that the candidate presses hard on the answer sheet when completing the test. If they are light-handed their responses may not come through onto the scoring card!

Finally, let’s consider the link between psychometric test scoring and reliability/validity. As you know, the test administrator can have a huge impact upon psychometric test reliability throughout the whole process. At the scoring stage you can affect reliability simply by scoring incorrectly. This might happen because you miss the fact that a candidate crossed out their answer and changed their mind. It may also happen because you try to score fast and just don’t add up correctly. Perhaps you use the scoring key incorrectly or perhaps the scoring is so arduous (often the case for personality assessments) that you simply get lost in the scoring or incorrectly use your calculator!

Ensure therefore that you fully understand how to score the test, use the scoring key as per the publisher’s instructions, score slowly and double check or have someone else double check your scoring. If possible, use computer based scoring or self-scoring answer sheets. Incorrect scoring reduces reliability and of course that means that a valid test can become invalid and a waste of time or money!

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.

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.

Online Training in Psychometric Tests

Singapore-based Psychometric Test distributor PsyAsia International has announced that they will begin offering a live online training and accreditation program for the Apollo Profile from 1-4 June. The training will be run by an experienced business psychologist who is accredited with the Apollonean Institute to accredit users of this personality test.

One of the major benefits of Apollo over other personality assessments is that it compares the candidate’s scores on each of its 34 business personality scales to those who have been rated as excellent. Different comparison groups are available which means the client can compare their candidate(s) with excellent sales employees, call centre staff, supervisors, leaders and so on. Most personality assessments compare candidates with the average person rather than excellence and hence this makes Apollo a rarity as well as a highly-valid tool.

PsyAsia International has been offering world-class training in Asia since 2002. The company only uses fully qualified and registered organisational psychologists to ensure quality and competence. This means that PsyAsia’s psychologists typically have as much training as a medical doctor, not to mention the hours of professional development they are required to undergo each year! PsyAsia added online training to their repertoire in 2008 and followed this with their first live online training course at the end of 2009 – the Psychometric Test Administration Course.

The test administration course follows the British Psychological Society’s syllabus for their Certificates of Competence in Occupational Testing and allows the attendee to request that PsyAsia also assess them for the BPS Certificate in Occupational Test Administration. Training runs over 3 consecutive daily sessions of about 70-80 minutes, starting at 5pm Singapore/Hong Kong time which is 9am UCT/GMT. Each session is recorded and attendees can log-into PsyAsia’s online learning centre to view them as well as to chat with other attendees and post questions in the interactive forum.

The online training for the Apollo Profile will follow a similar format to the company’s Live Online Psychometric Test Administration Course. Apollo training will run over 4 consecutive daily sessions. There will be some pre-course work along with homework and a final piece of post-course work. Attendees without a background in psychometric testing will also need to complete the test administration course but there is no additional fee for this.

PsyAsia team member Cynthia Wong was asked to comment on who she thought would benefit from the training.

“Anybody who is interested in using a top-rate personality assessment such as the Apollo Profile will definitely benefit. This assessment has numerous uses which include recruitment/selection, development, team-building and career coaching. Moreover, those who may find it difficult or inconvenient to attend our face-to-face training in Asia now have an option to receive the same training and accreditation online.” said Ms. Wong.

Registration is now open for the June Apollo Profile sessions. Due to the online nature, attendees don’t need to be based in Asia. All training is conducted in English so registration is open to anybody who is able to make the time slots and credit cards are accepted. To register, simply follow the links on the course page at: http://www.psyasia.com/apollo_profile_accreditation_course.php

If you would like to find out more about the Apollo Profile, please see here: http://www.psyasia.com/personality_tests_apollo.php

You may also be interested in attending the free Apollo Profile webinar from Jim Bowden, the publisher, on 17 May. Full details at http://webinars.psyasia.com

Apollo Profile Personality Test Webinar

Saville Consulting Wave® – Highest Validity per 15 minutes of test-time!

The Saville Consulting Wave was developed by the originator of the OPQ and co-founder of SHL, Professor Peter Saville as an alternative to the static assessments available in the market. Wave assesses candidate’s motives and talents within a validation-centric framework. It was validated within 100 separate businesses.

The tool uses both normative and dynamic ipsative questions and has been shown to have greater validity in predicting performance and leadership than any tool it has been compared to in research. Furthermore, the shorter version of Wave, the Focus Questionnaire has more validity per 15 minutes of test-taking time than any comparison questionnaire.

Profile jobs, run 360 performance appraisal, assess personality type for team-building, assess entrepreneurial potential and provide extensive development advice all within one framework

The performance culture framework which underlies the Saville Consulting Wave allows the tool to be used extensively for different HR applications from recruitment/selection through to performance appraisal and development.
Follow the links below for further details:

Wave Professional Styles	Performance Card Set
Wave Focus Styles	Wave Performance 360
Wave Types	Wave Development
Wave Entrepreneurial	Wave Culture
Wave Job Profiler

View some sample reports from Wave here

For the early-bird offer (25% discount), please register at http://www.psyasia.com/register
and quote WAVESEB for Singapore courses and WAVEHEB
for Hong Kong Courses. Deadline is 15 May for Singapore and 31 May for Hong
Kong.

Note – delegates on our BPS Level B course in
Singapore always get 50% discount off the Wave Conversion
course which follows their Level B training. More details at http://www.psyasia.com/bpscourses

Course Reviews from Previous Attendees

“Informative, relevant to work, knowledgeable facilitator”

Danny
Hay Group

“Good introduction to the tool and practical session was useful”

Geraldyn Fong
Managing Consultant (Psychologist)

Hudson Global Resources, Singapore

“Insightful and informative. The methodology behind the Saville
Consulting Wave Report is light years ahead of other psychometric tests yet
it is a breeze to use! The interface between motives, competencies and culture
is exactly the missing link that recruiters are looking for.”

Diana Yeo
Ministry of Defence, Singapore

“A highly practical and enjoyable approach to the application
of an extremely useful tool for selection and development – well worth the investment,
highly recommended.”

Neville Pearsall
Director HR
RMIT International University, Vietnam

Not ready for training and accreditation
but still want to use the Wave?

Then please consider PsyAsia’s Psychologist-on-Call™
service instead. Our registered psychologists will take care of the complete process for you, including a call and behavioural interview for your candidates and a feedback session with the decision-maker. More details at http://www.psyasia.com/psychologist_candidate_screening.php.

Psychometrics Singapore / PsyAsia International offer Free Psychometric Testing Course in Singapore

Introduction to Psychometric Testing Course: Singapore 11 May 2010

PsyAsia International is Asia’s independent Leader in Psychometric Test products and Training. We choose to distribute only the world’s best, most validated psychometric assessments and offer locally relevant, world-class training in psychometrics. The Introduction to Psychometrics Workshop expands on PsyAsia’s expertise in Psychometric Training in Asia by offering a course geared to those with very little experience or understanding in Psychometrics. Many first time clients don’t understand why they need to be careful in their choice or use of psychometrics and many do not understand why training is a necessity in competent test use.

This one-day course aims to provide experienced-based training in an accessible and economical way. The course is easy to understand and yet covers many of the important issues to be aware of when choosing and using psychometric tests. Given our passion for Asia and our passion for the competent use of psychometric tests in Asia, PsyAsia makes no profit on this course. We charge delegates a small fee that reflects the cost of the hotel venue (including buffet lunch and refreshments) where the training is held as well as materials that we provide to the delegates. What’s more, if you later decide to attend one of our accreditation courses in Psychometrics, we will issue you with a discount code that reduces your course fee by the amount you paid for this course!

The history of psychometric testing Comparison of psychometric tests with other modes of employee testing and assessment The benefit of using psychometric tests in recruitment/selection, development and coaching Reliability in psychometric testing Validity in psychometric testing Error in psychometric testing Review of different aptitude, personality and values tests on the market Questions to ask your test publisher or distributor What next? Note: During the workshop, delegates will create quasi-psychometric tests in groups to enable a hands-on exploration of issues such as reliability, error and validity in psychometric tests.

To view full course details and to register, please click here.

PsyAsia International is pleased to announce that until the end of March we will be offering free daily webinars to showcase our product range. Their will be no set agenda. The agenda will be set by attendees. Please note however that product knowledge may differ depending on which of our consultants is running the webinar. Come along and chat with our consultants, see the Saville Consulting Wave, Identity Personality Assessment and the Apollo Profile in action. Ask questions about training and consulting options and so forth!

For times and to register, please click here…