Psychometric Testing

[Onket]

How were the competences tested?

They had to write a reply to a letter & deal with a mock telephone call IIRC.

 

[Brainaddict]

Hmm, interesting stuff kabbes, but I imagine most organisation would do this stuff really badly, to the extent it might be better if they didn't do it at all.

Kind of like targets. It's much better to have no targets than bad targets imo, but everyone is so convinced they are a good thing that they don't worry about the quality of the targets too much, thus creating pain and suffering for everyone.

I think it would be better for an organisation just to do interviews than to do your kind of complicated skills testing badly - and badly is how most of them would do it, if only because, as you say, people are a bit rubbish - particularly the people in management.

 

[kabbes]

Sadly, you are right. But then they shouldn't be surprised when they recruit poorly, have large staff turnover rates and discontent in the ranks. Ultimately, good recruitment pays for itself. And there are very good organsiations that can help, if you are willing to pay the coin.

 

[Jenerys]

Ultimately, good recruitment pays for itself. And there are very good organsiations that can help, if you are willing to pay the coin.

which is the type of consultancy my brother runs and owns

 

[cesare]

Sadly, you are right. But then they shouldn't be surprised when they recruit poorly, have large staff turnover rates and discontent in the ranks. Ultimately, good recruitment pays for itself. And there are very good organsiations that can help, if you are willing to pay the coin.

There are very good, much smaller and less 'corporate' ones too, for far less coin

 

[cesare]

Hmm, interesting stuff kabbes, but I imagine most organisation would do this stuff really badly, to the extent it might be better if they didn't do it at all.

Kind of like targets. It's much better to have no targets than bad targets imo, but everyone is so convinced they are a good thing that they don't worry about the quality of the targets too much, thus creating pain and suffering for everyone.

I think it would be better for an organisation just to do interviews than to do your kind of complicated skills testing badly - and badly is how most of them would do it, if only because, as you say, people are a bit rubbish - particularly the people in management.

It depends on the organisation of course. For example, most of my own experience in this area was gained by doing it in-house.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

personally, I dream of a world where their is no interview, no application form, no CV, no psychometric test. We should in no way try to asses the capability of a candidate prior to the commencement of their employment. What we do is refuse to pay people who start a job but are unable to complete it to an acceptable standard (a vending machine maintenance person, for example, could start practising medicine tomorrow, but when they dont know how to diagnose a headache, they can fuck off come pay day time...). People would soon figure out what they are good at, and it would be much fairer. I dont see how it can fail. In fact, I am going to ask my union to petition for such a thing. Whos with me?

 

[Yelkcub]

Christ, I meet the MD in question yesterday. Hour chat followed IQ test, maths test, data analysis, tour of the head office premises. And then he offered me less than he was forewarned I charge.

Told him to decide whether he wants my services or not and call me Monday.

Btw, the maths and IQ tests were a piece of piss. Don't they tailor them to the level of intellect required?

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Christ, I meet the MD in question yesterday. Hour chat followed IQ test, maths test, data analysis, tour of the head office premises. And then he offered me less than he was forewarned I charge.

Told him to decide whether he wants my services or not and call me Monday.

Btw, the maths and IQ tests were a piece of piss. Don't they tailor them to the level of intellect required?

no, they group the results in job categories. A data analyst should be expected to reach, for example, the top 60-80% in the IQ tests, and maybe mid range in maths. An MD would be expected to achieve the upper tiers. My company is considering introducing them, and actually asked for current staff already doing the same role as me to volunteer to do them for "calibration" (I dont think they promised a guarantee that these results would in no way be used "against" the active employees taking them, actually, which is one ethically grey area thinking about it...) ie, so that they would have a standard set out by which to measure future applicants to that role by. I declined to be involved, on the basis it would be unfair to measure future applicants against my own high standard of greatness.

 

[cesare]

Christ, I meet the MD in question yesterday. Hour chat followed IQ test, maths test, data analysis, tour of the head office premises. And then he offered me less than he was forewarned I charge.

Told him to decide whether he wants my services or not and call me Monday.

Btw, the maths and IQ tests were a piece of piss. Don't they tailor them to the level of intellect required?

If you can tell me specifically which tests they were, I can possibly find out more about them e.g. how they were constructed, what sample size, validity, test re-test reliability etc.

In very general terms, the tests aren't tailored to level of intellect. They measure certain abilities across a sample of the general population and come up with a norm that the test results are interpreted against.

Whether the abilities that the test/s measure, match the requirements of the job is the first big question. Then how big was the sample of the general population? 20? 5000? And what is the general population? Students? Middle managers? Business owners? In other words - who are you being measured against, and how many as an indication against this norm? And when the initial sample are retested, do they have the same results i.e. is it a reliable test? Were they even retested? Etc etc etc.

And all that's after actually looking at the test construction to see if it's measuring, what it's meant to be measuring. And then moving on to the quality of interpretation of the individual's test results, against what the practitioner knows about the actual test and how it's perfomed in the past.

So many variables. Which is why no reasonable person would ever take the results of a psychometric test on face value and make arbitrary decisions based purely on that face value.

 

[Mation]

Hmm, interesting stuff kabbes, but I imagine most organisation would do this stuff really badly, to the extent it might be better if they didn't do it at all.

Kind of like targets. It's much better to have no targets than bad targets imo, but everyone is so convinced they are a good thing that they don't worry about the quality of the targets too much, thus creating pain and suffering for everyone.

I think it would be better for an organisation just to do interviews than to do your kind of complicated skills testing badly - and badly is how most of them would do it, if only because, as you say, people are a bit rubbish - particularly the people in management.

^this x plenty

It depends on the organisation of course. For example, most of my own experience in this area was gained by doing it in-house.

I bet it doesn't depend much, though. Of course there will be people who do it well and as intended, but it sounds so hard to get right that I can't imagine the majority of organisations doing so most of the time.

Sounds like an absolute nightmare.

 

[Jenerys]

no, they group the results in job categories. A data analyst should be expected to reach, for example, the top 60-80% in the IQ tests, and maybe mid range in maths. An MD would be expected to achieve the upper tiers. My company is considering introducing them, and actually asked for current staff already doing the same role as me to volunteer to do them for "calibration" (I dont think they promised a guarantee that these results would in no way be used "against" the active employees taking them, actually, which is one ethically grey area thinking about it...).

Then that is rubbish of the consultancy and rubbish of the company. If you want to recommend a good consultancy, pm me

 

[cesare]

I bet it doesn't depend much, though. Of course there will be people who do it well and as intended, but it sounds so hard to get right that I can't imagine the majority of organisations doing so most of the time.

Sounds like an absolute nightmare.

It's not actually that hard to do it competently; it just requires training, practice & motivation to do it properly and consistently. As with any tool, it's only as good as the person using it.

But yes, many organisations don't do it properly. Or they outsource it. But a fair few do do it well.

It's not really a nightmare. If I was more statistical/mathematically minded, occupational psychology would be an interesting area to work in. But I'm not, so I don't - just the outskirts.

 

[Dowie]

but they work - big companies do not pay out tens of thousands for the licences, software and training to effectively use these tests as an integral part of the recruitment process, just for a laugh/because they believe in star signs. They have a proven track record of accurately sumarising potential applicants abilities, strengths, weaknesses, and work & learning styles.

????

You're basing your argument on the legitemacy of these things on the idea that big companies won't waste money on this sort of guff if it didn't work?

Id be very skeptical that these things actually give much in the way of relevant/useful information to employers.

As for the proposition that companies don't waste money on stupid pseudo scientific shit - have a look at how many sales/management training providers incorporate "NLP" into their training programs.