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!
HRM Training Course Singapore
PsyAsia International has released dates for their annual public course in Human Resource Management in Singapore. The course runs usually as an in-house course, but once per year the company offers it as a public course. This year all those who had previously registered their interest were surveyed for their preferred dates and locations so PsyAsia expects the course to run at or near capacity. There’s an early bird discount of 10% on offer for all those who register before 30 August entering discount code HRMEB on page 3 of the booking form. Full details and online registration at the HRM course webpage: http://www.psyasia.com/human_resource_management_training_course.php
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.
Human Resource Training Course in Singapore
Our HRM Training in Asia
PsyAsia International’s Human Resource Management Training course is run by an award-winning and experienced registered orgranisational psychologist (with doctorate) who previously taught the course at Master’s level for the UK’s University of Leicester and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The facilitator has the unique advantage of also being a practitioner so can tie theory with cutting edge practice in each interactive session.
Public Training Course
PsyAsia’s Human Resource Management course runs all over Asia on an in-house basis. About once each year we open the course up as a public course in Hong Kong and/or Singapore. We’ve received an influx of enquiries recently and so believe now is the time to find out potential delegate preferences for dates and venue. If there is sufficient interest we will run the course publically sometime between November and March.
Survey for dates and location
To register your interest and tell us whether you’d rather attend in Singapore, Hong Kong or Online, please click the link below to complete our rapid survey. It will take you less than 60 seconds.
Rapid 60 Second Survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/hrmcourse
For full details about the course, please see here:
http://www.psyasia.com/human_resource_management_training_course.php
Personality Tests – customised for Singaporeans?
If the claims of some HR practitioners in Asia are founded, we may need customised Personality Tests for every group out there, Singaporeans included. Is this really the case? Find out what science tells us at PsyAsia’s FREE webinar on Chinese Personality and its assessment for predicting workplace performance. Full details of the webinar can be found by clicking the graphic below:
Register for the Free HRM Webinar
Saville Consulting Wave Training Discounts for Singapore and Hong Kong
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 |
|
Become accredited to use the Wave
with a 25% early-bird discount
Take action now! Your competitors may already be trained to use this century’s revolution in personality assessment. We’ve trained people from the big consulting firms to small local careers advisors to recruitment consultants, government ministries and universities. We want to provide you with an incentive to join the increasing number of professionals who value high validity in selection and support from local psychologists in Asia. PsyAsia International, Asia’s leader in psychometric training, runs the Wave training in Singapore and Hong Kong. We’re offering a 25% early-bird discount for our next courses in those locations:
Wave Conversion Course: 1 Day – View course details
For those with BPS Level B or those who are qualified to use
a substantive personality assessment such as OPQ but not including tests such
as MBTI/DISC/HARRISON etc.
SINGAPORE: 17 June (SG$1200 / SG$900)
HONG KONG: 6 July (HK$6000 / HK$4500)
Wave Module Course: 2 Days – View course details
For those without a qualification in a substantive personality
assessment.
SINGAPORE: 17-18 June (SG$2050 / SG$1538)
HONG KONG: 6-7 July (HK$9888 / HK$7416)
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.
Replace Psychometric Tests in Singapore?
Last week the Singapore-based Straits Times published an article which reported a study carried out at NUS linking testosterone to advantages in leadership. PsyAsia’s Dr. Graham Tyler was asked to comment on the reasearch and he was asked if biological testing might replace psychometric testing in the future! A copy of the article can be downloaded here:
There are a number of limitations in the above thinking. Not least the fact that the study was carried out on students – hardly real-world organisational leaders! Also, given that this was a correlational analysis it cannot be inferred that testosterone increases leadership skills. It might actually be the opposite. Finding oneself in leadership scenarios may cause the body to produce more testosterone!
Biological testing is certainly not about to replace psychometric tests in Singapore or anywhere else. Not only is the area contentious it would also bring legal issues into play. We know already that biology plays a role in many aspects of who we are from personality traits to ability and more. However, we also know that the environment, access to resources and simply luck (ie where we find ourselves, who our teachers/mentors are) also play a huge part. Psychometric tests should never be used on their own to inform decision-making processes and neither should any other form of assessment – biological testing, interviews and so forth. However, the use of highly valid tools used in conjunction with each other is a good thing.
Note: In the article, there is a mention that aptitude tests can predict between 9-36% of performance. This is incorrect. The journalist asked about personality tests and was told that traditional personality tests can predict about 9-36% of performance. Aptitude tests are able to predict more than this and more modern personality assessments such as Identity or the Saville Consulting Wave do an even better job than traditonal personality tests!
360 Appraisal Online Performance Assessment for Singapore
Singapore and Hong Kong based award-winning PsyAsia International offers 360 Performance Appraisal via the Saville Consulting Performance Culture Framework. The company has recently set-up a new site dedicated to easy understanding of the 360 appraisal process. It’s easy to set up and the cost is very reasonable. Optional services such as feedback from a psychologist consultant or team building and development services can be added to the package. The online performance appraisal system can be used by any organisation worldwide.
The Saville Consulting Wave is based upon a validation-centric scientific framework known as the Performance and Culture Framework. As part of this framework, Saville Consulting offers the Wave Performance 360 (multi-rater) online assessment of performance at work. Wave Performance 360 online assessment enables a range of relevant individuals to rate a colleague’s performance at work. How an individual perceives themselves and how this compares to other people’s perceptions of them is a powerful feedback tool. 360 assessment enhances self-awareness and provides a great platform for personal development.
Wave 360 provides a unique report where the dual reporting lets the individual being assessed understand on one profile exactly how they were rated and how this benchmarks externally.
The report combines quantitative rating scales with qualitative comment. All raters have the option of contributing narrative text on areas they think the individual does well, could do less of and could improve on. As a further option, Saville Consulting provides a very detailed development report for the individual based on all ratings.
This powerful 360 appraisal can be used on it’s own or in conjunction with Saville Consulting Wave® Styles. When used in combination it can help individuals understand the gaps between their performance and potential as a platform for utilising unused potential and realising critical areas of potential.
Further details at the special site: http://360-appraisal.com
Reasons for Being Selective When Choosing Personnel Selection Procedures
The scientist-practitioner gap in personnel selection is large. Thus, it is important to gain a better understanding of the reasons that make organizations use or not use certain selection procedures. Based on institutional theory, 4 European researchers predicted that six variables should determine the use of selection procedures: the procedures’ diffusion in the field, legal problems associated with the procedures, applicant reactions to the procedures, their usefulness for organizational self-promotion, their predictive validity, and the costs involved.
To test these predictions, 506 HR professionals from the German-speaking part of Switzerland filled out an online survey on the selection procedures used in their organizations. Respondents also evaluated five procedures (semi-structured interviews, ability tests, personality tests, assessment centers, and graphology) on the six predictor variables. Multilevel logistic regression was used to analyze the data.
The results revealed that the highest odd ratios belonged to the factors applicant reactions, costs, and diffusion. Lower (but significant) odds ratios belonged to the factors predictive validity, organizational self-promotion, and perceived legality.
