Psychometric Tests for Job Seekers

I've had to do these a couple of times.

The person hiring usually has some warped idea of what the overall shape of the psychometric pattern should look like which no candidate will actually fit...

...unless they bull**** every answer of course

The DWP job seekers' "quiz" was described as a "scientific approach to measuring personal strengths" - which it certainly isn't. There are professional guidelines laid down by the UK's learned body - the British Psychological Society -for psychometric testing and psychometric tests. I can't think of a single professional guideline that wasn't breached by this abomination.

I'm staggered DWP didn't realise they'd be rumbled on this one. Everyone completing the "quiz" was given the same feedback about themselves (even if they gave different answers each time they did the "quiz"). Some smart "techie" types looked at the computer programming for this "quiz" and showed us how the scam worked.

Psychometric testing is an important part of the education and careers guidance / career development services I offer. This rubbish scheme by DWP feels like a personal affront.

I also think that psychometric testing, can be very helpful for both employees and employers, however only in case it has been properly prepared.

Interesting discussion. I have taken a few of these in my day and found the results to be food for thought, but have never taken one when going for a job.

I'm not sure they stand up as people tend to answer questions differently on paper compared to how they act/behave in reality.

If test-takers try to cheat the psychometric tests (eg because they want to fool the recruiter they're the next Richard Branson), there's quite often a nifty little formula hidden in the test itself that'll identify just how much cheating is going on and correct for it.

It's quite possible to tell the difference between deliberate cheating and test results that are "off key" for some other reason.

It's part of the research done before tests are published to examine how well each question on the test predicts behaviour. As regards a sales test, for example, you might compare what answers a test-taker gives with his / her relative success rates in achieving various sales performance targets.

Thats pretty clever. So do you write these or adapt for relevant career paths yourself, or is this something that you get from a specialised source? Just curious, interesting stuff

I don't mean deliberate cheating, I mean the natural discrepancy of humans between how their perceive their own behaviour and how they act.

As for the degree of the ability of test design to take this into account, that's an academic debate for another day.

There's a technical manual to accompany every (reputable) psychometric test. This explains how the test was developed, how it performs (eg how valid and reliable it is - from memory there are about 16 different ways to test validity), the "norms" for different groups of test-takers (eg men, women, UK citizens, American citizens etc) and so on.

The technical manual for the main personality test I use (the 16PF) explains the research done to check how people tried to cheat the test; other tests' technical manuals can be expected to contain similar material.

The 16PF research specifically investigated how "candidates" applying for desirable jobs cheated - ie which questions did they answer in a particular way when they wanted to present a rosy view of themselves? When the researchers discovered exactly how people cheated they were able to design "trip" questions that were particularly effective in identifying the amount of "positive image creation" going on ... and formulae to use for correcting it!

Psychologists have put lots of research effort into making sure psychometric tests actually do what they say they do - so you can imagine just how furious I feel when DWP produces a shoddy little "quiz" thumbsdown(giving the same "report" to test-takers irrespective of their answers) and misleads everyone into thinking it's a psychometric test. It's also a breach of psychology's ethical code to force anyone to take a psychometric test (as was done to the JSA claimants).

I'm qualified as a Step 1 MBTI practitioner (Myers Briggs). Not a test or a personality disorder test lol, but very good at determining things about a person so you can better understand and get the best from them. Everyone has qualities even if they are buried and don't surface often!

The problem only lies in that square pegs never did fit well into a round hole.

These other tests don't really tell you if they will be good in a job. IMO anyway.