Psychometric Testing is Evil and I'll tell you why

[Tobias March]

a) All it really tests is your ability to do psychometric tests.

b) It's a corporate costsaving device to eliminate the largest number of applicants possible for a position without having to pay examiners.

c) You are not being tested on how well you answer a question, but how long it takes you and how many you can do (time is the factor, not the right answers).

d) It sucks.

This was one godawful waste of a morning.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

a) All it really tests is your ability to do psychometric tests.

b) It's a corporate costsaving device to eliminate the largest number of applicants possible for a position without having to pay examiners.

c) You are not being tested on how well you answer a question, but how long it takes you and how many you can do (time is the factor, not the right answers).

d) It sucks.

This was one godawful waste of a morning.

And what is a psychometric test?

[Callie]

Does it measure how psycho you go about your metrics? Because I have quite a few coworkers who would fail that test...

[Flying_Postman]

I faced a couple of those tests during job interviews, I think it's just a waste of time and some of the questions can get downright rediculous.

[BoosterBronze]

I hate it when I say the hidden card is a star, and I'm SURE I'm right, but Dr. Venkman gives me electroshock anyways.

[Ontir]

More detail, what exactly is this testing?

My knowledge of pyschometry, is when someone takes psychic information by touching an object or person.

[Michael P]

More detail, what exactly is this testing?

My knowledge of pyschometry, is when someone takes psychic information by touching an object or person.
This is psychometyrics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics), though.

I find it hard to call this sort of thing evil, but I don't see why it should have any effect on hiring policies.

[Gilda Dent]

I have never been hired at any job where a "psychological" test was given. The questions are often obviously ridiculous:

If you knew you wouldn't get caught, would you steal from the company? Well duh, who's going to say yes on this one?

or

Do you think most people would steal if there were no chance of getting caught? Well, again, this one seems like a "duh" to me. Of course most people would steal on occasion if they knew for sure there would be no consequences.

The tests are always full of idiotic questions like this, that either are tests of how stupid you are or are entirely unrelated to ability to do the job.

Gilda

[howyadoin]

The tests are always full of idiotic questions like this, that either are tests of how stupid you are or are entirely unrelated to ability to do the job.But stupid people do need to be weeded out. I sure wouldn't wanna hire one.

[(A)//(E)]

I'd walk straight out the door if a prospective employer tried to get me to do this crap.
"I have no confidence in the leadership of an organization that utilizes such a rediculous, inane, and ultimately degrading process as the cornerstone of thier hiring process." and then I leave.

[Tobias March]

I don't want to claim to know exactly what psychometric testing is, but I'll tell you what they asked me today.

I had to sit three 'papers' today in an exam hall. Each test lasted between 20-30 minutes. The first involved questions asking me to describe myself using a series of adjectives, then how I thought others would describe me. The purpose here is not to discern what kind of person I am - rather see if I maintain any consistency in my answers.

Second up was word comprehension. A series of scenarios were described and then questions followed. We were to answer True/False/Cannot Say to different statements regarding each situation depicted.

Lastly was the maths paper. Again multiple choice solutions, the questions numbered forty in total and were mostly concerned with percentage conversion, basic stats & solving problems. This was the shortest paper at 20 mins. Few completed it.

My objection to psychometric testing as I've encountered it is that it's purpose is to eliminate the largest possible amount of people from the running at a minimal cost. The corrections are done by computers. The questions are mostly meaningless (with the exception of the maths paper) as they're designed to determine patterns in your answers, to see if you're simply randomly answering each question. The purpose is not to narrow down the field to the most suitable candidate - it's to whittle down the numbers purely for the sake of doing so.

[Sheldon]

It depends on what it is being used for. I used to work on various clinical drug trials, where psychometric testing was used to measure improvements in memory, fine motor control, other cognitive abilities. They were quite useful.

I'm not too experienced in the tests used by companies for employee selection purposes. I know many jobs are looking for specific personality types. And if the test is done well, what it is trying to measure for will not be entirely self-evident.

Also like Howy said some jobs need a tool to weed incompetent people out. The problem is when they chose a test that is inappropriate for the job in question.

[Dreadstar]

If you knew you wouldn't get caught, would you steal from the company? Well duh, who's going to say yes on this one?

or

Do you think most people would steal if there were no chance of getting caught? Well, again, this one seems like a "duh" to me. Of course most people would steal on occasion if they knew for sure there would be no consequences.


These are trick questions, Gilda. The answer to the second one is the same as the answer to the first one. The idea is that the second one is the practical equivalent of "I need some advice, see I have this friend..."

In essence, you're saying in the second question that *YOU* would steal from the company.

This is why they do NOT give you a lot of time for the tests. So you can't reason out what they're REALLY after.

[JeffreyWKramer]

a) All it really tests is your ability to do psychometric tests.

b) It's a corporate costsaving device to eliminate the largest number of applicants possible for a position without having to pay examiners.

c) You are not being tested on how well you answer a question, but how long it takes you and how many you can do (time is the factor, not the right answers).

d) It sucks.

This was one godawful waste of a morning.

Your arguments don't make an ounce of sense, on many levels.

a) While it is true that familiarity with a test format can impact how one does, that effect is often not very strong. For a lot of the more reliable standardized tests, the average score of people who have taken similar tests to those who have not, and who have equivalent amounts of education, is barely statistically significant. This does vary some depending on the test in question, though.

b) Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, so long as the test in question is relevant (see below).

c) Speed of work/thinking is often relevant, and is somewhat correlated with some other qualities which are desirable in some situations. Hell, in some cases speed is part of what is being tested... speed and accuracy can both be desirable traits.

d) brilliant argument, really.

There are some problems with testing, no question. First off, some tests are pretty crappy - poorly designed, not well-normed, testing factors other than what is intended, etc. Second, many tests are used for things for which they really aren't intended, and often aren't appropriate. But on the other side of the coin, the right test, used for the right purposes, and administered and scored by a competent evaluator can provide a lot of good information.

[StoneGold]

I hate it when I say the hidden card is a star, and I'm SURE I'm right, but Dr. Venkman gives me electroshock anyways.
I believe the answer was "a bunch of squigly lines."

[Dan Apodaca]

Kramer, it seems like you're talking about testing in general.

This is a specific type of testing that is filled with obnoxious, repetitive questions that waste time and do their best to confuse you.

The tests never really do anything to determine if you're qualified for that specific job. They just sort of indicate if you can tie your own shoes. Which should be obvious enough.

They could accomplish more by having the manager talk to you for a couple minutes.

[Gingold]

Kramer, it seems like you're talking about testing in general.

This is a specific type of testing that is filled with obnoxious, repetitive questions that waste time and do their best to confuse you.

The tests never really do anything to determine if you're qualified for that specific job. They just sort of indicate if you can tie your own shoes. Which should be obvious enough.

They could accomplish more by having the manager talk to you for a couple minutes.

While that's all true, the tests gives the manager documentation that the person she didn't want to hire is an idiot. If the prospective employee were to allege some sort of unfire hiring practice, the test provides real evidence, rather than the manager's gut instinct.

[Dan Apodaca]

While that's all true, the tests gives the manager documentation that the person she didn't want to hire is an idiot. If the prospective employee were to allege some sort of unfire hiring practice, the test provides real evidence, rather than the manager's gut instinct.

Jobs have a probationary period where the employee can be fired without needing any "evidence".

Also, most job applications include qualifiers saying that you can be fired at any point for any reason. If you sign that form, then you can't sue over it.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Kramer, it seems like you're talking about testing in general.

This is a specific type of testing that is filled with obnoxious, repetitive questions that waste time and do their best to confuse you.

The tests never really do anything to determine if you're qualified for that specific job. They just sort of indicate if you can tie your own shoes. Which should be obvious enough.

They could accomplish more by having the manager talk to you for a couple minutes.
Well, what I said applies to both general testing, and to these sorts of tests. I'm fairly familiar with this particular genre of testing, as a former academic colleague (an occupational psychologist) did a lot of his work in this area of assessment (designing and evaluating such tests).

There are some good tests of the sort you're talking about. There are also crappy ones. Some companies go with crappy ones because they're cheaper.

Also, once again, even the good tests are only good if used appropriately, to measure what they're designed to measure.

Often it's not the tests that are the problem - even in this arena - so much as the way the tests are being used (or misused).

[Dan Apodaca]

Often it's not the tests that are the problem - even in this arena - so much as the way the tests are being used (or misused).

I don't buy it. I've taken a good number of these tests (not being a college graduate and applying for jobs) and the flaw is in the design. They are insulting. They're specifically designed to try to trick you into making a mistake.

[Gilda Dent]

These are trick questions, Gilda. The answer to the second one is the same as the answer to the first one. The idea is that the second one is the practical equivalent of "I need some advice, see I have this friend..."

In essence, you're saying in the second question that *YOU* would steal from the company.

Uh, no, the questions are much different from each other. Saying that I think most people would steal if there were no consequences says nothing about whether or not I would steal. The question asks for what I think about other people, not what I think about stealing. Given that most corporate loss comes from employees, it seems likely to me that my answer is the correct one.

Gilda

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't think there's really any problem using tests as part of a weed-out process. It's probably not a very effective method unless you're dealing with very large numbers of applicants for a position (with small numbers, a brief discussion with a managerial sort would probably make more sense), but - again - assuming the test used is relevant in some way, it can be appropriate.

Some tests commonly used to screen job applicants do contain a lot of irrelevant and confusing questions, but that's the point - that type of test intended to test sustained attention, concentration and the ability to tolerate boredom and frustration. Those qualities are important for a lot of repetitive tasks, and for things like telemarketing.

[Dreadstar]

Uh, no, the questions are much different from each other. Saying that I think most people would steal if there were no consequences says nothing about whether or not I would steal. The question asks for what I think about other people, not what I think about stealing. Given that most corporate loss comes from employees, it seems likely to me that my answer is the correct one.

I don't think they're all that different in purpose, really. It's the most likely answer certainly, but it's telling in and of itself. I'm certainly not debating that the answer would be true to what you believe, that would be stupid. You know your mind and I wouldn't dream to think that I'd know it better than you. But putting the 2 together it's: "I believe that most people would steal but not me. Stealing is commonplace, but I'm uncommon." Can you see where the dichotomy arises?

[Gilda Dent]

I don't think they're all that different in purpose, really. It's the most likely answer certainly, but it's telling in and of itself. I'm certainly not debating that the answer would be true to what you believe, that would be stupid. You know your mind and I wouldn't dream to think that I'd know it better than you. But putting the 2 together it's: "I believe that most people would steal but not me. Stealing is commonplace, but I'm uncommon." Can you see where the dichotomy arises?

Not really. To start, the first is a question of personal ethics, or possibly psychology, while the second is a question of sociology.

The first combination you post seems reasonable to me. The second not so much. The question is a hypothetical "if you knew you wouldn't get caught". I remember reading at least one study that concluded that the single biggest deterrent to petty theft an expectation of getting caught, not personal morals, that it's fear of consequences, including embarrassment or shame at being caught, that keep people in line more than a personal ethical code. Personally I think it's a combination--outside consequences keep those who are basically good doing the right thing.

All of which seems to me to indicate that with a question this complex, the utility as a hiring tool is going to be very little. To really evaluate it, you'd have to know whether the person's educational background included some knowledge of psychology or sociology or corporate loss prevention, or ask some follow up questions.

Gilda

[Dan Apodaca]

Gilda and Dread's disagreement is a perfect example of why these tests are useless.