Psychometric tests suck?

[reverse]

Psychometric tests suck?

 

I know the history of Psychometric testing and have compared them to other ways of categorising people by nature.

 

You can pretty much make them come out what ever way you want by adjusting your mindset at the start of the test,

 

yet some Employers pay large fees to have them administered?

 

 

What do you folks think of the tests?

[ed84c]

Rubbish. Any test to try and determine things is rubbish. You have your own ideas, and unless it specifically asks you in deatail about all your ideas.

 

And why do people tell you what job you should go for? In the UK we teach, strongly, the complete opposite karma.

[reverse]

I have often wanted to tick the boxes so they spell out the word JUNG when viewed at a distance.

 

or ticked all the boxes that say "I like to hurt small animals"

and "I often hear voices"

 

 

Trouble is that someone might not get the joke, and you could end up wearing one of those spiffy coats that do up at the back.

 

First time I sat one of these tests ( as the final ok in a job interview) I was a little miffed and indignant at being examined ( like a mouse in a maze) in such an important situation.

 

But I chose to fill out the test despite my protest.

It was a really good job.

 

Anyone else been tested

and how did you feel

and any questions pop up as just downright strange?

[Coral Rhedd]

I don't think employers should be allowed to use these. They are invasive. Even in the Vocational Rehab field they can be used to deny people reasonable benefits.

 

Some of these tests have trick questions to test your truthfulness. I always wondered how the person who never really did steal anything would be preceived.

[Flareon]

I don't think employers should be allowed to use these. They are invasive. Even in the Vocational Rehab field they can be used to deny[/b'] people reasonable benefits.

 

Administering such tests, while understandably viewed as unfair or unnecessary, are well within emplyers' rights. No one is forcing people to apply, after all. As for the benefits, Coral, may I ask you to elaborate on this?

 

Some of these tests have trick questions to test your truthfulness. I always wondered how the person who never really did steal anything would be preceived.

 

I fail to see what's wrong with testing a prospective employee's honesty, especially when the motivation to lie in favor of oneself is so great. When I took such a test years ago, I answered completely honestly and felt no worries. I figured, if my personality wasn't a fit for the job, I would suffer as much as the business would.

 

With these said, I have to admit that many tests out there are seriously flawed, and that many jobs contain aspects that cannot be tested easily.

[reverse]

well say for example you went for a job

 

and the interviewer asked you if you slept around a lot

or how many boyfriends you had...

would you mind that sort of personal questioning...

after all, that too is a way to find out more about you...

 

but is it anything to do with the job.

 

Most of the Multiphasic tests don’t ask job related questions.

[Coral Rhedd]

Administering such tests' date=' while understandably viewed as unfair or unnecessary, are well within emplyers' rights. No one is forcing people to apply, after all. As for the benefits, Coral, may I ask you to elaborate on this?

[/quote']

 

I do work in Voc Rehab. I have seen consumers of services denied appropriate funding and training based upon these tests simply because their counselor is having budget woes. Disabled people who are seeking retraining or help with employment are pretty much at the mercy of the whims of their voc rehab counselor. Once someone senses that his/her goals are not being supported, that person should refuse any test not independently administered. There are also docs that contract with Social Security and Vocational Rehabilitation who behave like hit men to limit the opportunities of the disabled. Just your tax dollars at work.

 

I fail to see what's wrong with testing a prospective employee's honesty, especially when the motivation to lie in favor of oneself is so great. When I took such a test years ago, I answered completely honestly and felt no worries. I figured, if my personality wasn't a fit for the job, I would suffer as much as the business would.

 

You misunderstand. The question about stealing is a tripwire. If you say you have never stolen, you call into question your veracity on the rest of the test.

 

With these said, I have to admit that many tests out there are seriously flawed, and that many jobs contain aspects that cannot be tested easily.

 

I am not saying these tests do not have their uses. However, employment should not depend upon the results of these tests alone. (Neither do I think drug tests should be administered for jobs in which sobriety is not a particular need -- like truck driver or medical doctor. But you won't find drug tests being performed upon medical doctors, will you? )

 

These psychometric tests are mostly useful when they are voluntary, their results are well explained to the test taker, and they are directly related to the prospective employment. Have a gander at the DSM. Most of us are crazy.

 

I, for instance, am a wild-eyed civil libertarian.

[Void]

We live in a "test" society. They are in place at every level in life. Whether your trying to get into school, outta school, get a job, get a diagnosis, etc...They are ubiqutous. Some are good, and some are shitty. Thats how it goes.

 

When DECISIONS are made using tests, psychometric standards for an acceptable test are quite stringent. However, MOST employers do not understand this, and consequently rely on crummy tests. Tests that are supposed to compliment an interview, and other background information.

 

Honesty/integrity tests usually have a LIE scale built in, sort of like the MMPI (F scale?). Anyhow, I like to think they are good at screening out idiots, if anything. Someone who has the balls to say they have NEVER taken ANYTHING from work (mind you, some tests ask if you have taken a pens, pencils, erasers, etc...) probably should not be hired.

 

One also has to consider the job applied for. I applied for a food server(waiter) job while I was getting my BA and had to take the 16PF! However, when I thought about it, it made sense to give someone who will have to interact with the public a personality test. Someone who lacks agreeableness might not perform well and quit. Companies do not like to lose money on training.

[Coral Rhedd]

We live in a "test" society. They are in place at every level in life. Whether your trying to get into school' date=' outta school, get a job, get a diagnosis, etc...They are ubiqutous. Some are good, and some are shitty. Thats how it goes.

 

When DECISIONS are made using tests, psychometric standards for an acceptable test are quite stringent. However, MOST employers do not understand this, and consequently rely on crummy tests. Tests that are supposed to compliment an interview, and other background information.

 

Honesty/integrity tests usually have a LIE scale built in, sort of like the MMPI (F scale?). Anyhow, I like to think they are good at screening out idiots, if anything. Someone who has the balls to say they have NEVER taken ANYTHING from work (mind you, some tests ask if you have taken a pens, pencils, erasers, etc...) probably should not be hired.

 

One also has to consider the job applied for. I applied for a food server(waiter) job while I was getting my BA and had to take the 16PF! However, when I thought about it, it made sense to give someone who will have to interact with the public a personality test. Someone who lacks agreeableness might not perform well and quit. Companies do not like to lose money on training.[/quote']

 

Look Void, there are some honest people in the world. Until 1999, I had not stolen anything since I was 14 years old and even that incident was sort of iffy. I had simply forgotten to return some candy I was supposed to sell for a sorority I belonged to until the deadline had passed so I just ate it. In 1999 I decided that before the next century I had to change my boring ways. I was out of a job and I decided the only way I was going to pass one of those employment tests, to force myself to learn to steal.

 

So I went to a coffee shop that sold the New York Times. It was a Monday but the Sunday edition was still available. I simply slipped the Monday Times into the Sunday times and got both for the price of the Sunday Times. I cannot tell you how good it felt. At last I felt normal! No longer would I be an outsider with my nose pressed up to the glass of bad behavior. Actually, I felt a little buzz. I realized how kleptomaniacs must feel.

 

As a writer of fiction, I find that such research is occasionally necessary. Like the time I wanted to write about the threesome . . .

 

Oh never mind. I may lie, but I don't steal.

[reverse]

Some of the test questions seem daft.

 

Example:

 

“I like to do physical activity in my spare time.”

 

One of the honesty countercheck questions states

 

“I prefer to spend my spare time in a quiet activity like reading”

 

In my real life situation

In summer I’m out enjoying my body.

In the winter I educate myself and do indoor things?

 

What do you think I should have answered to these questions?

 

What about the socialisation questions?

Sometimes I love to be in the thick of a crowd other times I like to be by myself quiet.

Each situation is equally valuable to me.

 

How can I answer these questions honestly?

 

I have serious doubts about these testes.

[Mokele]

So, accuracy and usefullness aside, isn't it up to the employer to decide if they want to require a test? It's not like you *must* apply for the job. If the employer thinks the tests are a legitimate hiring practice, why should anyone stop them? Isn't who to hire and how the perogative of employers?

 

Mokele

[reverse]

I guess it's down to how much right any outside person has to your private life and thoughts.

 

The balance of power is not even in this job situation.

 

sure you can walk away from the test.

that may result in instant disqualification from the employment process.

 

What really concerns me is that employers may use the tests to seek putty type individuals to push around.

 

it's not just about how well the job is done it's also about how much more I can get for my wage outlay.

[Coral Rhedd]

So' date=' accuracy and usefullness aside, isn't it up to the employer to decide if they want to require a test? It's not like you *must* apply for the job. If the employer thinks the tests are a legitimate hiring practice, why should anyone stop them? Isn't who to hire and how the perogative of employers?

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

No. In the U.S. who employers hire is their prerogative within the context of the laws established to also protect the interests of employees and prospective employees. For instance there are questions that an employer can not legally ask. If a test was designed to explicitly or implicitly gather information about the prospective employee that would be illegal to ask outright, then such a test could be found to be illegal.

 

Let me give you two examples:

 

1) It is against the law to ask prospective employees about child care arrangements, how many children they have, if they use birth control, how old their children are, what schools there their children are in. Seem odd? The reasoning behind the law is that so employers do not discriminate in either of two respects. That they don't discriminate because they assume that parents who are busy with the needs of their children will not make good employees and that they don't discriminate based upon the sex of the applicant.

 

These laws came into being for good reason. In the past parental responsibilities or even the possibility that a woman might become pregnant were probed to avoid hiring women. Since children were primarily their mother's responsibility, (think many moons ago Mokele ) employers often justified not hiring women for that reason. This was particularly useful for them if they did not want to hire women in the first place because they preferred to hire men. This is not a preference that our current law honors or allows.

 

If employers were to design a test meant to reveal whether or not one was a parent, wanted to be a parent, or prioritized parental responsibilities over work responsibilities, this test could (and I think would) be found to be illegal.

 

2) It is against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of disability. Employers cannot legally inquire about illnesses, disabilities, or directly about the potential employees ability to do the job despite a very apparent disability.

 

Here is an example: I come to you (an employer) in answer to an advertisement for teaching position at your university department. Let us say that I want to teach history. I have with me my service animal who aids me because I am blind. (I am being hypothetical. I am not really blind.)

 

During the interview, although my disability is obvious, you may not ask me how I am going to find my way around the campus. You may not ask me if I have to have the dog with me. You may not ask me how I will manage to do paperwork. You may only ask me the same types of questions you would ask a sighted person and if, in your hiring decision, you have in any way considered the impact of my disability upon your choice of who to hire, you have broken the law.

 

If you set a test in front of me and claim because I cannot read it I have not fulfilled the demands of the hiring process, you have broken the law. You must find a way to accomodate my blindness by offering an alternative way to take the test, without asking personal questions about how my blindness allows me to function in the workplace.

 

I have given you the above example so that you will understand my next rather tricky example. By tricky, I mean more complicated, greyer, harder to understand.

 

Bipolar Disorder is both a mental illness and a legal disability. If you were to design a test for the same position of history instructor that was designed to winnow out people with a mood disorder, you might have broken the law. The momentum is to give people with mental disabilities the same protection that people with physical disabilities now have.

 

If you chose not to hire me because those test results showed that I might have Bipolar Disorder, you would have to also show that having Bipolar Disorder would make it impossible for me to perform the tasks of the job even with the provision of reasonable accomodations.

 

There is one question that employers ususually use to very indirectly approach the subject of disability and possible accomodations. They may legally ask, "Is there any reason that you cannot fulfill the requirements of the job?"

 

This allows prospective employees to choose to address their disabilities, but the law does not require them to do so.

 

I hope this has clarified how some tests employers might give could be suspect.

[Mokele]

While I support most non-discrimination in the workplace (with exceptions, of course, for when it would prevent the individual from doing the job or would endanger them or others), I fail to see what this has to do with psychometric tests that are *not* designed as above.

 

Let's take a hypothetical example: say I want to get a job loading trucks for Fed-Ex (I had (and hated) this job, but there was no test). I do the interview, and they ask that I take a psychometric test. This test is designed to assess spatial reasoning, for the obvious and simple application of determining who will be better at the job and get the most boxes into a single truck. In your opinion is it right or wrong for them to a) require this test in the first place and to b) make hiring decisions based on it?

 

There is one question that employers ususually use to very indirectly approach the subject of disability and possible accomodations. They may legally ask, "Is there any reason that you cannot fulfill the requirements of the job?"

 

My question is, if the answer is "yes", can that be taken into account in the hiring process?

 

To use another hypothetical, fast-forward 20 years. I have a professorship and a lab, and I'm hiring a lab assistant. The hypothetical blind-Coral applies. Now, my lab is currently working on pack-hunting behavior in cuban crocodiles, and the job involves being in a cage with 6 fast, strong, man-eating reptiles that see you as dinner. Am I allowed to discriminate on the basis of your blindness, because you could not perform the job without being torn to shreds and devoured?

 

That's an extreme example, but I'm sure you get the gist of my objection (namely safety).

 

Mokele

[Void]

Look Void' date=' there are [b']some[/b] honest people in the world. Until 1999, I had not stolen anything since I was 14 years old and even that incident was sort of iffy. I had simply forgotten to return some candy I was supposed to sell for a sorority I belonged to until the deadline had passed so I just ate it. In 1999 I decided that before the next century I had to change my boring ways. I was out of a job and I decided the only way I was going to pass one of those employment tests, to force myself to learn to steal.

 

So I went to a coffee shop that sold the New York Times. It was a Monday but the Sunday edition was still available. I simply slipped the Monday Times into the Sunday times and got both for the price of the Sunday Times. I cannot tell you how good it felt. At last I felt normal! No longer would I be an outsider with my nose pressed up to the glass of bad behavior. Actually, I felt a little buzz. I realized how kleptomaniacs must feel.

 

As a writer of fiction, I find that such research is occasionally necessary. Like the time I wanted to write about the threesome . . .

 

Oh never mind. I may lie, but I don't steal.

 

Well, its a good thing a wrote "take" rather then steal. Steal implies intention, however, I have "taken" things from work, usually unintentionally. Point being, if you construe "take" as "steal" and endorse the question in the negative, your probably hiding something. However, if you construe "take" as "accidentally leaving with an item" or "unintentionally forgetting to leave that tape measure on my desk" then you will most likely endorse the question in the positive...because MOST people have acciedently taken something.

[Void]

Some of the test questions seem daft.

 

Example:

 

“I like to do physical activity in my spare time.”

 

One of the honesty countercheck questions states

 

“I prefer to spend my spare time in a quiet activity like reading”

 

In my real life situation

In summer I’m out enjoying my body.

In the winter I educate myself and do indoor things?

 

What do you think I should have answered to these questions?

 

What about the socialisation questions?

Sometimes I love to be in the thick of a crowd other times I like to be by myself quiet.

Each situation is equally valuable to me.

 

How can I answer these questions honestly?

 

I have serious doubts about these testes.

 

Depends on how those tests are consturcted. If the are empirically created, then they can be just about anything that predicts.

 

For example:

 

Depressives are known to endorse a question on the MMPI (an empirically constructed test) that states something to the effect of:

 

I am thirsty often or I often feel thirsty.

 

It sounds like a weird question, but it is correlated with a diagnosis of depression, so we include it in to the scale.

 

That leads me into my next point, all those seemingly wierd questions are part of a "scale", or multiple items that yield a score on that particular construct/domain.

[Coral Rhedd]

While I support most non-discrimination in the workplace (with exceptions' date=' of course, for when it would prevent the individual from doing the job or would endanger them or others), I fail to see what this has to do with psychometric tests that are *not* designed as above.

[/quote']

 

I suspect a legal challenge may be possible in the case of a broad-based personality test such as the MMPI in cases where the given disability being winnowed out is a psychiatric illness whose drawbacks do not impact upon the specific tasks of the job. Let's say that the ideal employee is outgoing friendly and problem-solving but the task of the job is data-entry. Someone with a Schizoid Personality Disorder (they are now finding genetic links to personality disorders) is just not friendly. Since friendliness is not a job related characteristic and the person can basically perform the job without much personal interaction, he might have a case. I am talking here more about future possibilities than how the law is currently interpreted.

 

Tests that focus upon the job tasks should present no problem. I would have actually saved myself some silly detours if I had known when I was 18 that my clerical skills would always s**k.

 

Let's take a hypothetical example: say I want to get a job loading trucks for Fed-Ex (I had (and hated) this job, but there was no test). I do the interview, and they ask that I take a psychometric test. This test is designed to assess spatial reasoning, for the obvious and simple application of determining who will be better at the job and get the most boxes into a single truck. In your opinion is it right or wrong for them to a) require this test in the first place and to b) make hiring decisions based on it?

 

No. And as a woman who tested something like 99% in spatial reasoning , I would certainly have had no objections to such a test when I was young, strong, and spry. If spatial reasoning can be shown to be a legitimate requirement for the job -- no problem. But the test must not be designed to eliminate women for instance. They cannot require you be able to dead lift 100 pounds if that is not truly a likely job task. If you only need to lift 50 pounds then 50 pounds it is.

 

My question is, if the answer is "yes", can that be taken into account in the hiring process?

 

Absolutely. It not only can be taken into account; it should be.

 

To use another hypothetical, fast-forward 20 years. I have a professorship and a lab, and I'm hiring a lab assistant. The hypothetical blind-Coral applies. Now, my lab is currently working on pack-hunting behavior in cuban crocodiles, and the job involves being in a cage with 6 fast, strong, man-eating reptiles that see you as dinner. Am I allowed to discriminate on the basis of your blindness, because you could not perform the job without being torn to shreds and devoured?

 

The requirements of the job obviously eliminate the blind person and the hypothetical Coral would have no case if she sued.

 

That's an extreme example, but I'm sure you get the gist of my objection (namely safety).

 

I do get your gist. In fact, I recently worked with a client who revealed his epilepsy just as he was about to be promoted. His company instituted a drug test policy. He took the test without telling the tester that he was taking medication. Bad move. By law, legal medications are not supposed to be revealed to employers. But because he is so mistrustful of people and systems, he didn't mention his seizure medication. This meant that when his test results were reported, he looked like a druggie.

 

Naturally his employer demanded some answers. He then revealed the epilepsy. Because his job required operating heavy equipment, he was put on a desk job -- but not the one he wanted. Like an A$$, he chose to make waves over some things.

 

Bad feelings between him and his employer meant he was eventually eased out. Instead of the promotion he had hoped for and had a good chance of getting, he has now been without a job for five years. At the age of 50, his prospects are dim. Losing his job meant he spiraled downward into major depression, bankruptcy, and suicidal feelings.

 

Now I am not suggesting he should have ever been operating heavy equipment in the first place. But had he gotten the promotion, he need never have operated heavy equipment again.

 

Obviously, the thing that makes things work in the first place is finding a good job match. This is where testing and vocational counseling can really fill a positive need. This approach benefits employers and employees alike.

 

However, to some extent, the hiring process will always be a bit of a game. For instance, if I say your resume should reflect only your strengths, this is good advice. The interviewer will probe for inconsistencies and weaknesses. This only makes sense. The employee wants the best possible employment package and the employer generally wants to exact the most work for the least amount of expenditure. The competing interests are built into the system.

 

That said, if anyone asks me to take a test, I will want to know what it measures and why. It is my job to protect my interests.

[Hellbender]

While I am only in my early 20's, and have never held a "serious job" (mostly crap kitchen work for now) of course I have never been subject to one of these tests. What sort of questions do they ask? Are they potentially unfair questions?

[Coral Rhedd]

While I am only in my early 20's, and have never held a "serious job" (mostly crap kitchen work for now) of course I have never been subject to one of these tests. What sort of questions do they ask? Are they potentially unfair questions?

 

Hellbender, they simply test skills and personality. Here is a site that explains and has some sample questions.

 

http://www.shldirect.com/phasei/practicesection-phaseII/Practice-8.asp?login=482997&PWD=0641780E9F47

[Coral Rhedd]

Depends on how those tests are consturcted. If the are empirically created' date=' then they can be just about anything that predicts.

 

For example:

 

Depressives are known to endorse a question on the MMPI (an empirically constructed test) that states something to the effect of:

 

I am thirsty often or I often feel thirsty.

 

It sounds like a weird question, but it is correlated with a diagnosis of depression, so we include it in to the scale.

 

That leads me into my next point, all those seemingly wierd questions are part of a "scale", or multiple items that yield a score on that particular construct/domain.[/quote']

 

Interesting. Being thirsty could also mean diabetes.

 

It is those tests that could be used to diagnose disability that I object to, depression being one of those things that can rise to the level of disability. I see in such tests a capacity to do an end run around antidiscrimination laws. I don't question the efficacy of the MMPI. On the contrary, I think that it is the power of the test to diagnose that makes it a problem. If it is designed to ferret out some things that people would rather keep private, then isn't it, by definition, invasive?

 

Actually, there is a profession for which depression is practically a requirement. If I were hiring a poet for an MFA creative writing program, I would not hire one who claimed never to have been either elated or depressed. Anyone who had achieved stability would probably have dwindling creativity.

[reverse]

 

I am thirsty often or I often feel thirsty.

 

It sounds like a weird question' date=' but it is correlated with a diagnosis of depression, so we include it in to the scale.

 

.[/quote']

 

Trouble with that is:

 

a fellow I know has a kidney ailment and often feels thirsty.

is he depressive,

 

not in the slightest.

[reverse]

While I am only in my early 20's, and have never held a "serious job" (mostly crap kitchen work for now) of course I have never been subject to one of these tests. What sort of questions do they ask? Are they potentially unfair questions?

 

they are long and very boring and usually administered at the end of lengthy interviews and practical tests.

 

about 500 multi choice boxes to fill.

 

eg.

 

1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

 

here is a typical question.

 

"Other people think highly of me"

 

this particular one made me curious, not being gifted with telepathy I'm pretty sure I will never know what other people really think.

 

The first time I encountered this particular question I was thrown.

I knew the only logical answer was that there is no answer.

(the tests asks that you don’t simply tick down the middle or miss out questions)

 

there are several types of tests, most directed to detect occupational inclination

 

( if you believe in that sort of thing, smacks of fatalism or determinism to me and not at all in line with the idea that anyone can be president of the United States line)

 

there are a few questions scattered throughout the test to find out if you are a raving nutter and will come into work one day with a handgun to settle that old borrowed stapler issue with your entire department.

[reverse]

How would you answer this question.

and what is the reasoning behind your answer.

 

"Other people think highly of me"

 

1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

 

[Coral Rhedd]

How would you answer this question.

and what is the reasoning behind your answer.

 

"Other people think highly of me"

 

1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

 

 

I wouldn't check off 1 or 5 but maybe 4 or 3. Usually I think people are better off steering down the middle in personality tests. One might imply you are arrogant or, even worse, narcissistic. 1 or 2, would imply you have no self esteem.

 

Wouldn't it be interesting if we actually could know what people think of us?

[Void]

Trouble with that is:

 

a fellow I know has a kidney ailment and often feels thirsty.

is he depressive' date='

 

not in the slightest.[/quote']

 

Did you read my ENTIRE post? The last line clearly states that this question is not to be taken BY ITSELF, but included in a scale of depression...If you don't know what a "scale" is, READ my post again...