The Truth About Psychometrics

Psychometric testing is an area that regularly provokes debate.  Are they useful?  When should they be used?  Which ones are really valid?  Anyone who has read the article “Want a job? Let’s play mind games” recently published in the Sunday Times will have read an attempt by a journalist to present a ‘balanced’ view on Psychometrics. As an Occupational Psychologist for whom these tests are a useful and valid support to my work with clients, I would like to counter the somewhat cynical attitude of the journalist which is unfortunately fairly representative of many people’s views on the use of Psychometric testing in selection and development.  So here is a Psychologist’s eye view of the issue…

The application of Psychometric testing within organisations has grown in popularity over recent years. Most people working within organisations these days tend to have heard of or indeed has experience of at least one of tools such as16PF, OPQ, Myers Briggs, FIRO B or Hogan. The irony is that despite their popularity (and, I would argue, effectiveness) there are still some whose views and indeed experiences of personality testing is negative with individuals refusing to accept that they can be put into boxes and their character or behaviours analysed through filling out what they consider to be a mindless questionnaire.

As a trained Psychometrician the experience of walking into a feedback interview to face a cross armed, somewhat sceptical individual is not uncommon. After a while however clients tend to relax as they realise that I am not there to “read their mind” or “suss them out” but actually that  I am there to validate the results of the questionnaire and enhance their self-awareness by exploring with them rather than interrogating or analysing them.

So why is there so much negativity? There are a number of reasons for this, some possibly down to a failure within the Occupational Psychology profession to educate effectively. The first is due to a misunderstanding as to the purpose of these tools.  It would seem that people are really not comfortable accepting the fact that these are tools which try to enhance understanding of ‘the self’, and yes, after all they are just tools and need to be used within the context of all sorts of other indicators. The results are not gospel, and whilst statistically reliable and valid, such tools are not fool proof hence the importance of validating the results in the context of an interview. Most Psychometric tools are there to provide an indication of how someone might behave in a certain situation not an in depth analysis of their self concept. Our behaviour is of course driven by contextual factors (i.e. we do not behave the same way all the time). This is often validated by our client's classic response; “well, it depends”. Of course our behaviour depends on the situation, however, we are not so random and unpredictable that we cannot make some assumptions based on characteristics, traits or preferences and Psychometric tests help us to do this.

Secondly, the word “test” suggests that there is a right or wrong way to be. The truth is “there are no right or wrong answers” and this can lead to confusion particularly when using tools like the 16PF in selection (This tool explores a clients profile against 16 behavioural traits). If used in selection and indeed if applied appropriately then the behaviour traits as described by the 16PF can be mapped to a role specific competency framework (those critical skills and qualities required for an individual to perform effectively in that particular role).  As such the 16PF for example can give you an indication of likely fit to the role but won’t necessarily tell you whether that individual’s demonstration of competencies is effective. Indeed as with all types of interviews, the evidence generated is secondary i.e., what they tell you rather than what you observe.  This is why we would always recommend an Assessment Centre for recruitment where there is the opportunity to observe the individual, through a variety of exercises, potentially ‘practising what they preach’.

The third reason for the scepticism comes from misuse.  With the growth of the personality testing industry comes the growth of organisations offering the latest tool which has not been validated, individuals who are not properly qualified, and tests being used inappropriately and unethically. For example, it is not appropriate to use certain tools in selection. The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) looks at individuals’ preferences for behaving, which can be incredibly useful when looking at an individual’s impact on others or exploring team working, but from which you can make no assumptions about ability within a role. However this does not stop some unethical practitioners from using it for these purposes.

When used correctly Psychometric tools are effective and insightful. . Not only can they serve as an aid to understanding an individual within the context of that organisation but following the feedback session that individual is also left with an increased understanding of themselves and heightened levels of self-awareness. So I would ask you to suspend any cynicism, use a practitioner that you trust or that is referred and grasp the opportunity to look at yourself and others within your organisation from another perspective that might just add real value to both personal and organisation performance.

For further information on Psychometric tools and how to make them work for you please visit www.qedconsulting.co.uk/psychometrics or call Farah Waheed on 01302 761222