Psychometric Tests for Job Seekers

Most people - in most situations - are fairly good at knowing themselves and perceiving their own behaviour. There've been studies investigating whether individual test-takers can pick out their own personality profile from a selection of fairly similar personality profiles - the answer is usually "YES". People who know those test-takers well can also pick out the right personality profile for them from a pile of broadly similar profiles.

There are some situations, though, when you look at behaviour and you look at the test results and they don't quite tally! That's sometimes because of the person's environment or situation and sometimes because of a uniquely personal issue.

You might be a tough, self-assertive person happiest in positions of influence, for example, but if your job and your family's well-being depend on you never stepping out of line at work then you're likely to behave in a very subdued, docile way while your boss and colleagues are around. You'll probably pay the price (eg depression) for denying your natural instincts but at least you'll be able to pay the mortgage.

One of the reasons why I find psychometrics so interesting is that you can often make good guesses about what's happening in a person's life from the profile. When it's a career counselling appointment you can talk about these issues with the client and work out together no risk / minimal risk ways of improving the situation.

CareersPartnershipUK, that`s true. I also believe that these psychology/psychometric should be measurable and those quizzes "What was your dream profession when you were a child" should be published only in the life-style magazines.

I think that these tests are beyond stupid, and here in the US they are highly overused. Many people have been kept out of a job that they would actually be good for because of these stupid tests!

I disagree about psychometric tests being stupid (though I'd agree they're often mis-used and job applicants get short-changed when this happens).

However good any tool is, you don't get good results using it if you don't know what you're doing, use it badly (cos that's cheaper) or use the wrong tool for the job.

One of my particular bugbears is the widely marketed DISC "recruitment aid". When I last read the publishers' blurb about it, the text said openly it isn't a genuine psychometric test; however few managers and recruitment consultants seem to read that far!

If you use a "recruitment aid" as opposed to a properly researched, peer-evaluated psychometric test, you can't rely on anything it says about the candidate.

This beeb post made me think of this thread, first time I've noticed psychometric tests making the BBC headlines.


So it sounds like the tests carried more weight than actual job experience if the article is to be believed, which I assume is an internal HR misuse of the tests as a tool rather than them being to blame.

I'm a bit suspicious about this whole story.

The only people with a right to know about individuals' psychometric results (apart from themselves) were those directly involved in the selection process. It's a breach of the British Psychological Society ethical standards for such private and personal information to be given to anyone else.

I also can't imagine anyone selecting for such a senior post saying to themselves "We'll place all our reliance on one form of assessment - psychometric testing - and ignore everything else that could possibly help us".

Interesting stuff. I've never done one myself, how are they formatted, are they multiple choice? I often have problems when doing something like this as I can't find an answer that's relevant to me and just choose randomly. But like I say, I've never done one and presume they take that kind of thing into account.
I'd say it's a waste of time and money though if they're not going to do them properly.