Psychometric test in an interview.

[Blacksmith]

A friend of mine is going for a job interview next month, they have been told part of the interview is a psychometric test by Saville consulting.

Whats the PH view on these? From the very little I know it sounds like utter tosh.

[Cupramax]

PH view is likely to be this should be in the job section

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/forum.asp?h=0&a...

[Blacksmith]

Sorry the last time I posted it was just The Lounge.

[hman]

Blacksmith said:

A friend of mine is going for a job interview next month, they have been told part of the interview is a psychometric test by Saville consulting.

Whats the PH view on these? From the very little I know it sounds like utter tosh.

Total tosh,

We trialled a couple by testing current employees that we had a lot of experience of working with. None of the
pyschometric tests produced results which were accurate for these people.


On the basis of this we dont use them.

They seem a very lazy way to try to guesstimate how a candidate might work within your company. The problem is the test has no way of knowing how others will interact, influence, empower etc. the candidate.

If I went for a job which required me to take one of these tests it would be a firm no thank you and I would look elsewhere.

[rog007]

Alone, not helpful. As an adjunct to a number of pieces of intelligence on candidates, then they can be helpful (if designed well and the reader is able to understand and appreciate what the test results are telling them about the candidate).

[jkh112]

I use them for all my shortlisted applicants. I find them useful and surprisingly accurate.

[anonymous-user]

useful and surprisingly accurate these days

weighted appropriately in the selection process they can be valuable

if not to actually select someone, to give some ideas about how to develop them(self) in future

[Vaud]

rog007 said:

Alone, not helpful. As an adjunct to a number of pieces of intelligence on candidates, then they can be helpful (if designed well and the reader is able to understand and appreciate what the test results are telling them about the candidate).

^^^^
This

[Sir Bagalot]

I've had two lots done, both with very accurate results. On both occasions prior to the test I enquired if I would be given a copy of the results, they are not obliged to do so had they refused I would have refused to take them.

Occasion 1: I was emailed a copy. At no point was the report discussed. Not really a positive experience.

Occasion 2: I was emailed a copy the day before interview and the report was discussed at length during our chat. It was extremely thorough, and a very positive experience

[anonymous-user]

I prefer talking issues thru, ticking boxes suits some people and they can excel in the test, but not so good a dealing with issues in the real world. I don't think I would want to work for a company that used them as an assessment tool.

[popeyewhite]

Depends what the test is. Plenty of research out there on the most popular tests. Truth is that as results are based on a subjective rating scale which can change by the hour depending on the circumstances some are particularly unreliable.

[Zad]

My thoughts are that I don't want to work for a company which uses psychometric testing instead of actually talking to people and getting to understand them.

[truck71]

Great for ticking the "it was a fair process" box and to support poor interview techniques. If you know how to interview properly then you will tease out all you need to know.

[rog007]

truck71 said:

If you know how to interview properly then you will tease out all you need to know.

Some would disagree with that in terms of interviews solely being able to confirm an individual's competence to carry out the task you are looking to hire them for, eg:

http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%...

Evidence suggests no single assessment will suffice, hence using the well proven method of triangulating evidence to come to your decision; most typically an interview (of any type), a (well designed and relevant) psychometric test and a competency based assessment.

[truck71]

rog007 said:

Some would disagree with that in terms of interviews solely being able to confirm an individual's competence to carry out the task you are looking to hire them for, eg:

http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%...

Evidence suggests no single assessment will suffice, hence using the well proven method of triangulating evidence to come to your decision; most typically an interview (of any type), a (well designed and relevant) psychometric test and a competency based assessment.

An interesting document which accurately outlines the pitfalls of the interview process. It does still concentrate on the interview with the suggestion of using other methods in the process still being a small part. The other point is it is an academic report, not that this renders it irrelevant, but a context to consider.

My issue with psychometric testing is two fold, it de-humanises a very human process (at a time when candidates are prone to behaviours and actions that may not be a typical representation) and is often given far more influential weight than it deserves; people stop making decisions and let process's determine them (which is why the more unimaginative and political HR depts love them!).

[hman]

truck71 said:

rog007 said:

Some would disagree with that in terms of interviews solely being able to confirm an individual's competence to carry out the task you are looking to hire them for, eg:

http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%...

Evidence suggests no single assessment will suffice, hence using the well proven method of triangulating evidence to come to your decision; most typically an interview (of any type), a (well designed and relevant) psychometric test and a competency based assessment.

An interesting document which accurately outlines the pitfalls of the interview process. It does still concentrate on the interview with the suggestion of using other methods in the process still being a small part. The other point is it is an academic report, not that this renders it irrelevant, but a context to consider.

My issue with psychometric testing is two fold, it de-humanises a very human process (at a time when candidates are prone to behaviours and actions that may not be a typical representation) and is often given far more influential weight than it deserves; people stop making decisions and let process's determine them (which is why the more unimaginative and political HR depts love them!).

I agree, the test is a means of lending credibility to an interviewers decision, typically an interviewer who has very little time to complete the process thoroughly enough himself(poor results will surely follow) or doesn't have the know how to interview a candidate properly (and so shouldn't be doing the interviewing).

Any candidate who is asked to complete one should think carefully about how the company makes its decisions, and what effect that will have on them during their time at the company.

Edited by hman on Sunday 13th December 09:48