Psychometric Test Training in Singapore: up to 25% Discount; includes BPS Level A and B & Online Psychometric Courses
View all Psychometric Training Courses
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.
Online Psychometric Test Mini-Course: Lesson 6 – Psychometric Test Scoring
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.
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.
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.
Psychometric Test Products in Singapore and Psychometric Training in Singapore – daily free webinars
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…
Psychometric Training Singapore BPS Level A and B Certificates of Competence in Occupational Testing
PsyAsia International has announced new dates for our Psychometric Assessment at Work Course in Singapore.
PsyAsia has been running this course in Singapore and Hong Kong since 2002 and has collected many impressive delegate reviews. We were the first company to bring regular public BPS Level A and B training to Singapore and today we retain the only resident facilitators for this training!
The course is run by a British Psychological Society award-winning resident and registered business psychologist with a PhD earned through work with validation of Psychometric Tests in Asia. For more details of the course and facilitator and to register online, please click here.
The Singapore Psychometric Assessment at Work course will run over the following dates:
BPS Level A:
12-14 May 2010 or 9-11 June 2010
BPS Level B:
14-16 June 2010
Psychometric Test Administration only:
12 May or 9 June / or Live Online Training 30 March-01 April 5pm-6.20pm each day.
The dates are arranged as above to enable our delegates to choose whether to complete the whole course at once (9-11 June and 14-16 June) or to complete Level A first, then have a break before moving on to Level B (12-14 May and then 14-16 June). In addition, delegates may choose to only attend 5 days of the course and instead to attend our online Test Administration Training (see above), removing the need for attendance on 12 May or 9 June. Delegates will still need to be prepared to be assessed on Test Admin and Test Scoring once they attend! Please contact us before registering if you wish to choose this option.
Note: our March 2010 course in Singapore was fully booked (and in fact oversubscribed with a waiting list) 3 weeks before the course. Please ensure therefore that you register early. Early registration has additional benefits which include full access to this course’s area of our innovative online learning center where you can download training videos/courses, interact with other delegates, join in the forum and online chat and benefit from optional online live training with your facilitator even before the face-to-face training commences!
The day immediately following Level B is conversion training for the Saville Consulting Wave®. Level B delegates may register for this training at 50% off the regular fee by selecting that option during the booking process. In addition, anybody who registers for our BPS Level A/B Training before March 18 can join any other PsyAsia course at a 30% discount off the regular fee – please contact us for a special discount code if you wish to use this offer!
Interested in taking this course in HONG KONG?
For the next intake of students for our Psychometric Assessment at Work / BPS Level A and B course in Hong Kong, PsyAsia International is surveying interested individuals to provide us feedback on your preferred dates. Our survey is really simple with just 4 questions and will take you 30 seconds to complete. We’ll be sure to get back to you with the final confirmed dates if you leave your email address at the end of the survey. Click here to take survey
