Psychometric Testing
Discussion
I’ve done them as a candidate, and seen the results from others at interview time. Worryingly accurate.
There is no “wonder method” to answering them, just answer the questions honestly with your first thought/answer. Don’t try and answer what you think are all the same questions all the same way, for 2 reasons.
They aren’t the same question
You come out as some kind of bigoted psycho.
There are no wrong answers, not everyone can be MD.
There is no “wonder method” to answering them, just answer the questions honestly with your first thought/answer. Don’t try and answer what you think are all the same questions all the same way, for 2 reasons.
They aren’t the same question
You come out as some kind of bigoted psycho.
There are no wrong answers, not everyone can be MD.
Used to take them quite frequently and then got to the level where I was reviewing others results a lot.
So from both sides of the fence my advice is speed, don’t overthink, don’t try and second guess or be consistent with what you think your previous answer was, just tick tick tick get to the end pencil down shut the book.
You might not like what it says but it will be surprisingly accurate if interpreted well.
So from both sides of the fence my advice is speed, don’t overthink, don’t try and second guess or be consistent with what you think your previous answer was, just tick tick tick get to the end pencil down shut the book.
You might not like what it says but it will be surprisingly accurate if interpreted well.
Zad said:
It is amazing the expense HR departments will go to to avoid actually putting effort in to get to know people. The HR equivalent of homeopathy.
When I applied for my job they were used in conjunction with two interviews, written tests, CBT’s and group activity over 3 days. Believe me they put in a huge amount of time and effort.chunder27 said:
They are an utter nonsense, put in there to try and prevent HR people from doing their job. and reading CV's
Tests cost time and money. Who would bother putting somebody through a test if they don't meet the basic job criteria. If the hiring manager did a half arsed job or couldn't be bothered putting the effort in then the candidates going through the process will relfefr that too. Zad said:
It is amazing the expense HR departments will go to to avoid actually putting effort in to get to know people. The HR equivalent of homeopathy.
The HR team won't work with these candidates on a daily basis, they won't manage them, they won't need to proactively manage the team dynamic, likely won't share lunch or small talk that regularly. The hiring manager and their teams will. They should spend more time getting to know the candidates. The hiring manager needs to have responsibility for their hiring decisions. edc said:
The HR team won't work with these candidates on a daily basis, they won't manage them, they won't need to proactively manage the team dynamic, likely won't share lunch or small talk that regularly. The hiring manager and their teams will. They should spend more time getting to know the candidates. The hiring manager needs to have responsibility for their hiring decisions.
Which is why they shouldn't be used in isolation and indicate likely traits of the applicant which the interviewing can be looking for in their interview!Most rail companies use this type of testing, doesn't always produce good train drivers. I remember someone who came from a bus company sailed through all the testing , sacked within in 2 years after another newer recruit who knew about his previous record let something out about his reference being false. He had already had several serious incidents even after being restricted to depot only moves. But it was the bent reference that was his down fall . The testing didn't really highlight those who were just not railway minded in the real world , it certainly can't weed out those who are difficult to actual manage regards attendance and attitude.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff