Psychometric testing - skewed science or a saviour for selectors?

By JULIE MIDDLETON

It's an inexact science, matching jobs and people.

But psychometric tests - exercises measuring skills, motivation and personality, with the aim of predicting performance - are being increasingly used by employers in their efforts to improve hit rates.

The most recent study, by PricewaterhouseCoopers psychologist Yvonne Keelty, found that the number of Kiwi companies with more than 100 staff using such tests rose from 20 per cent in 1991 to 47 per cent in 1998, and is likely to rise further.

And with the cost of replacing top performers estimated by Washington DC's corporate advisory board in March last year to sit between 50 and 165 per cent of annual salaries, squeezing a square peg into a round hole is an expensive mistake.

Psychometric tests offer a swift way for stressed recruiters to weed out the best buys in a talent-short market.

It's big business in the United States, parts of Asia, and Britain. The claimed success stories are undeniably attractive.

A recent study by the North Shore City Council found the two-year turnover rate for full-time staff who had pre-employment assessments was 12.5 per cent.

Among those who went without, the figure was 22.6 per cent.

The council's human resources adviser, Steve Kinch, says the council has used such tools for about six years and encourages its managers to use them "to get a better fit".

But diluting the rah-rah is the tale of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, whose managing director, Jonathan Shier, last year demanded a full range of tests for all senior appointments.

Programmer Hugh McGowan, who had already accepted the plum post of director of television, resigned in disgust after apparently failing the maths segment of a five-hour test, his impatience underscored by flippant responses to questions such as "do you lie?"

His departure was messy and very public. Perhaps ominously, his unfair dismissal suit, seen by many as a test case, was thrown out in April.

Psychometric testing is a Pandora's box, admits Jeff Simpson, Wellington-based Cubiks' manager of psychological assessment.

"Some people think it's complete rubbish, and some believe it's the be-all and end-all."

The thought of baring heart and soul scares, he adds: "People see a labelling, putting someone into a box."

But that fear is misplaced, says TMP Worldwide senior psychologist Anne-Marie Prescott.

"The information that comes out is you. You are who you are, and [knowing that] is all part of coaching and development."

The no-testing argument runs like this: answers may be faked or distorted, consciously or not; there may be a chasm between answers and actual behaviour; described motivations don't necessarily translate to the office; and test results can be misused or cause discrimination.

AMP is one of our major companies to reject testing.

Spokeswoman Suzanne Carter says the company finds focused interviews and past performance better indicators.

Strong believers - among them Fletcher companies, Telecom, Vector, Clear, Air New Zealand, Nokia and the Bank of New Zealand - say the tests are a useful and objective companion to the usual assessment procedures, but not a replacement.

Tests are more accurate than interviews, claim advocates. They can screen large numbers of people efficiently, and provide a high level of validity and reliability if professionally applied.

Tests may pick up factors not otherwise highlighted, and are sophisticated enough to pick up faking.

But the links between tests results and performance aren't rigid.

Says industrial psychologist Keith McGregor: "There's a huge misconception that psychometric tests are designed to predict job performance - they're not. They're designed to predict the absence or presence of certain patterns of behaviour ... the way a person is likely to do their work and interact."

The bewildering range of inventories, indicators, profiles, scales and tests - big-hitting recruitment company TMP Worldwide, for example, has more than 150 different tests, and 16 psychologists to oversee them - can be divided into two camps.

Aptitude tests measure things such as numeracy, literacy, and problem-solving skills. Psychological assessments define traits such as sociability, extroversion and pliability, and must be interpreted by trained psychologists.

They then break down into two sorts of questions, says Simpson. "Ipsative" multi-choice questions give a limited choice of answers, and "normative" questions ask you to rank how strongly you agree or disagree with a proposition such as "I like working with people."

You're likely to sit a psychometric test in an office-like environment, either with pen and paper or at a computer.

But candidates shouldn't expect tests on skills they would never use on the job, says Simpson - that's unethical. Any test ordered, he says must be relevant to the job.

It might be that Hugh McGowan's job didn't require top-notch maths, says Simpson.

"However, if the job is as an auditor, maths should be tested."

Assessment doesn't come cheap. TMP asks more than $900 for its middle to senior managers' comprehensive assessment service.

Taking three to four hours to complete, it covers aptitude and reasoning tests and a values and motives questionnaire.

Feedback to both client and candidate on strengths and weaknesses is promised within 24 hours, and the report includes tips on how to motivate that person, and focused reference-checking questions.

Most individual aptitude surveys TMP offers - word fluency, verbal comprehension, and abstract reasoning - are around the $80 mark.

Because of the risk of litigation if the results are off-beam, testers must be able to provide statistics to prove their reliability and validity, says Prescott.

"We have a database of norms for New Zealand," she says. "Then it goes wider and into Australia - about 10,000 to 15,000 people."

Probably the first workplace psychometric tests were used during World War I, when they were employed to weed out those unsuitable for combat.

Future moves for testing include the internet - but warily, as no foolproof way exists of verifying identity and test conditions, stopping candidates getting someone else to sit the test, or having them review and change answers before hitting "submit".

Among local developers trying to find a way around those problems are Saville and Holdsworth and Carter Holt Harvey's Mariner7. Mariner7's general manager of business development, Warren Casey, promises great improvements in internet testing next month with the launch of its "Talent Engine".

But it will be some time, says Saville and Holdsworth in its newsletter, Feedback, before unsupervised internet-based testing is widespread and is regarded as anything more than a "quick, dirty and high-risk option."

How to reap the best out of your test

* If you're asked to sit psychometric tests then you're looking good to someone - so take heart.

And be rested, says TMP Worldwide. If outside factors, such as illness or work pressure, might affect your performance, say so - that will be taken into account.

Former ABC programmer Hugh McGowan says he was still recovering from a general anaesthetic when he flunked his test.

* Ensure you know the nature of the test. This should be explained in advance, advises University of Auckland psychologist John Gribben.

* Remember the rights accorded by the Privacy Act - ask where and for how long the results will be stored, and who will have access.

* Get some examples of questions beforehand and practise. Numeracy tests involve basic mathematical techniques such as calculating percentages - make sure you can do that without a calculator.

* Ensure you are offered feedback. Tests should be followed by an interview so results can be discussed.

* Be honest. Tests are designed to pick up fakers or those trying to second-guess. Stretch the truth and you'll be asked to resit.

* Go with your first reaction, says Mariner7's Warren Casey: "That's the one that's likely to be most relevant."