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:

Testosterone and Leadership

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!

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.

To view the complete article, click here.

Emotional costs of hiding feelings in a job interview

The goal of this research was to study display rules and emotional suppression in an employment interview. Participants, 74 graduating university students, were told that their videotaped performance in a simulated job interview would be evaluated by personnel experts. In a post-interview questionnaire, participants were asked about the display rules influencing their behavior in the interview. They were also asked whether they had tried to suppress or hide (negative) emotions during the interview. More men than women stated that they had tried to hide or suppress their feelings; these participants were classified as (emotion) suppressors. Participants who stated that they had not tried to hide or suppress their feelings during the interview were classified as nonsuppressors. The validity of self-reported suppression was supported by the external evaluations of two judges, who observed less nonverbal expressiveness (hand to head movements) in suppressors of both sexes and less anxiety in female suppressors. Suppressors were evaluated as more competent than nonsuppressors. In women, but not in men, emotional suppression was associated with increased self-reports of depressed state in the post-interview questionnaire.

Sourced from: Latest Issue of International Journal of Selection and Assessment