To what extent do you use psychometric testing / assessment and skill testing in the recruitment process?

[Corina]

Have you found psychometric testing and/or assessment to be an important part of the recruitment process? Have you found it to directly relate to a better job fit? Have you chosen to completely ignore the results of a test or assessment? What (if any) were the consequences?

From your personal experience what are the main benefits and what are your frustrations when using tests and assessments? Have you benefited from using assessments on existing employees?

Please refer to what kind of roles you have used the testing in. When wouldn't you use psychometric testing or assessment?

[PsychWorks]

Hi Carina, as an organisational psychologist who deals with various corporates in providing psychometric testing services I can share my experiences.

I've found that my clients regard psych testing as a useful tool as part of the selection process. Sometimes it affirms or confirms their selection choice and at other times, it actually challenges their perceptions (ie from an invterview) when a contrary view is put forward in a report. Nevertheless, most employers regard it as another tool to put into the decision making process and I agree with that. Rather than place too much emphasis on the results (eg test percentile scores) my advice is to always consider the other factors that go into the selection process.

Does testing result in a better job fit - well I think where the tests are relevant to the role and interpreted correctly then my answer is yes. Eg using a safety assessment for a role that exposes people to hazardous environments is a relevant test or assessing fluid intelligence (ie abstract reasoning) is a valid and powerful predictor of performance (and hence job fit) for a role where unstrucutured or adaptive thinking is required to make complex decisions. I'd have to say that tests applied in an undifferentiated way in terms of occupation can be very unhelful to organisations as they can screen out otherwise appropriate candidates or simply not tap into the core competencies required because the test battery is not tailed to the job.

I suppose it's inevitable that even though tests are used, results are ignored. My anecdotal feedback from clients is that where a candidate was not recommended for hire, the decision to employ them has often (but certainly not always) come back to bite them perhaps some way down the track. Even the best tests can only account for some 40% of the variation in performance in employees.

The benefits my clients express in using psych tests are the following:
a. gives them a benchmark to work to in terms of objectively measured abilities
b. challenges their initial perceptions that can often be subjectively influenced by impression management at interview
c. gives them avenues to explore either in a second round interview and or ref checks as a reuslt of the test findings
d. allows them an objective comparision for a short list (eg apprentices) where limited track record can be relied on to make a decision
e. gives them upfront information on the candidate's strengths and limitations prior to hiring allowing them to think about how to manage them or put in resources to assist them in specific deficit areas.

Using tests on existing employees again brings objectivity to the selection process and increases the perception of fairness. It also sheds light on things such as intellectual stretch and capabilities that cannot be measures by current job performance particularly useful when the employee is being considered for a more senior role or one outside their core or known competency areas.

Some organisations do not use testing due to poor previous experiences (outcomes) often due to inapppropraite tests being used or the way they are interpreted or applied. Some see it as an unnecessary cost or impost to the business and expect that their Managers (HR or Line) can make their own decisions without psych tests. I suppose I've heard a range of responses but ultimately there is strong evidence that appropriate psych testing gives a return on investment of around 12 times and that there is no better predictor of performance than cognitive testing particularly for roles that require complex thinking ability.

Hope that information helps

Regards

Chris

[Moz]

These are just my personal observations and perspective..

When I worked in recruitment (for 10+ years) I worked with numerous very successful international companies who were not interested in using psychometric or cognitive testing. However, some of the companies had very developed interview processes and there was clear evidence that it was serving them well.

Of the companies I dealt with that did use psychometric and/or cognitive testing, I can't recall one instance where the test results were ignored and the company went ahead and hired the individual. In fact there were many instances where the hiring manager was very keen to hire the candidate but was unable to do so as a result of the testing. I'm sure in some cases the "baby was thrown out with the bathwater".

If "even the best tests can only account for some 40% of the variation in performance in employees" then perhaps it could be argued that a rigorous interview process could be just as effective, or possibly more effective.

While I am sure the tests have some value, particularly in challenging perceptions that have been subjectively influenced (The Dufus Factor), there is a danger that companies use testing to make up for a shortfall in their recruitment expertise, or testing can make companies or individuals within, a bit "lazy" when it comes to developing their interview techniques.