Does psychometric testing prove anything?
What conclusion do you draw when a first class honours graduate with sparkling A level results bombs when completing Verbal and Numerical tests - that they are not bright? Or they didn't practice enough maybe? What happens when a candidate with low qualifications passes with flying colours? What conclusion do we draw then? Possibly their mate did the test for them? Or had they done the tests lots of times?
I for one believe in testing, and I also believe that there is always a need for bright, numerate and articulate individuals in my business or in our client's operations.
I do question though the high level of inflexibility concerning scores. How many candidates's careers have been adversely affected by missing out by 1 or 2 percentile on tests?
Maybe acceptable ..but only last week I spoke to a very dynamic Operations Dircetor who has reached this level at a very early stage in his career, who said they had failed tests at a company and been rejected - and the following week passed the same tests to accept his current role. Who lost out and how can this be right?
I think the businesses who run the tests should offer more help and assistance and perhaps be held more to count by candidates who need to get through their tests.
Because even though the tests are often seen as a key influencer in the decision making process, they should only be used as part of a selection process and frequently they seem to become the defining criteria. As a result, are strong candidates slipping through the net?
Wrong or right?
I for one believe in testing, and I also believe that there is always a need for bright, numerate and articulate individuals in my business or in our client's operations.
I do question though the high level of inflexibility concerning scores. How many candidates's careers have been adversely affected by missing out by 1 or 2 percentile on tests?
Maybe acceptable ..but only last week I spoke to a very dynamic Operations Dircetor who has reached this level at a very early stage in his career, who said they had failed tests at a company and been rejected - and the following week passed the same tests to accept his current role. Who lost out and how can this be right?
I think the businesses who run the tests should offer more help and assistance and perhaps be held more to count by candidates who need to get through their tests.
Because even though the tests are often seen as a key influencer in the decision making process, they should only be used as part of a selection process and frequently they seem to become the defining criteria. As a result, are strong candidates slipping through the net?
Wrong or right?
By Martin Stephens on 18 February 2011 10:17
If there is an elite, test their ability.
If they fail verbal reasoning tests they are not able to verbally reason. If the interviewer is not proficient at verbal reasoning themselves how will they know? If the interviewer is not numerate are they really likely to challenge the numeracy of the candidate? The results of the tests must be reviewed further up the organisation.
Testing should be set for all candidates as a strategic method of increasing the competence base of the company. I have always found companies I worked for which routinely use testing to be highly professional.
It also helps to reduce the company hiring poor performers, which is what happens in the real world, so the boss doesn't feel threatened. This is an issue many CEO’s grapple with.