What according to you makes a good accountant? Perhaps someone who is good at planning and organising, analytical thinking and is also able to manage risks effectively? I would have said exactly the same! And if you ask this question to an HR professional in Australia, South Africa or New Zealand, chances are they will all agree with us. But if I ask you what makes a good graphic designer? We can agree that need analysis, creativity and project management are the skills that distinguish this profile well.
These two examples show us that the purpose of psychometric tests, through the skill profiles sought, seems to be a universal constant. But how is it possible to arrive at these conclusions when each country has its own cultural nuances in terms of language, background, professional outlook, interpersonal relations, etc.? Let’s understand this better by looking at three simple explanations with concrete examples.
Explanation 1: Universality of the models used
Let's go back to our previous example of the accountant and graphic designer. Isn’t it surprising that the core skills needed for a role are the same across countries? In fact, it should not be surprising at all, since the tests used to measure these skills are based on scientific models that are recognized internationally. These models measure various dimensions such as personality traits, interests, cognitive ability and emotional quotient that are present in all cultures. All of these dimensions put together make up a skill base that allows for an individual to be evaluated in a reliable and valid manner.
Some of these models include the famous Big Five which is used in personality tests, and RIASEC, for interest tests. Like the Big Five, the RIASEC model is also applicable to different cultural settings. It measures six types of interests that are relevant in a variety of professional contexts around the world. For example, interests such as manual work, artistic creativity, interacting with people or working with numbers are found in all cultures. By relying on these models, psychometric test designers can ensure that their tools are reliable and individuals in all countries have access to high quality tools specialised for their context.
Explanation 2: Cultural adaptation in test construction
As already mentioned, in order to construct a psychometric test, we use models that are scientifically recognised around the world. Based on these models, questions are developed for candidates. Their answers to these questions generate a report that describes the candidate’s profile, including traits, motivations, aptitude and broad competencies.
However, the way the questions are asked varies depending on the geographic location. As an expatriate occupational psychologist, I am particularly sensitive to these adaptations as I work in two different cultures, Quebec and French, in addition to occasionally working with different French-speaking countries.
Let’s take an example of a manager’s personality assessment based on a reliable personality test. The aim is to measure the manager’s nature of interpersonal relations with his team, i.e. whether he is more formal and detached or more friendly and approachable. While his trait is measured in all countries, the test questions must necessarily be culturally adapted. In France, one of the questions may ask whether the manager is in favour of having a drink with his team after work. In Quebec, this question would not make much sense, as “having a drink” is not a common practice there. The Quebec version of this item may sound something like: Would you be interested in doing a “5 to 7” with your subordinates? While this item is valid in Quebec and presents no ambiguity, the same cannot be said for France.
Therefore, it is necessary to adapt psychometric tests culturally, both for the candidates’ experience and the validity of the results. This makes it possible to reformulate questions that are accessible and understandable to all candidates, irrespective of their cultural and linguistic background. In addition to contributing to a good candidate experience, cultural adaptation ensures that individuals from different cultural backgrounds are all assessed fairly, without possible biases that could put certain populations at an advantage or disadvantage.
Explanation 3: Local validation of tests and interpretation
Before being used in a new country, a test undergoes validation processes to ensure its reliability and relevance in the specific cultural context. This involves statistical analysis to check that the test items perform well and the results are consistent. In addition to this, country specific norms are also used to interpret the results. For each country, a candidate’s results are compared with a database created from a representative sample of the population.
This local validation continues in the interpretation of the results, where an expert must contextualise them in the cultural context. Let’s return to our RIASEC model and take two French-speaking countries with different cultures: France and Côte d'Ivoire. Although the ‘entrepreneurial’ dimension of RIASEC is universal, its interpretation and practical application vary from country to country. In France, entrepreneurial profiles are attracted by roles involving leadership, persuasion, initiative taking and influencing skills. They work in structured and strategic environments that value innovation, risk-taking, and the ability to mobilise teams. In Côte d'Ivoire, an entrepreneurial individual seeks to lead, persuade and influence, but in roles that involve community leadership and local economic development, and in environments that value initiative-taking, networking, and adaptability to evolving local markets.
A psychometric test can therefore be used in different countries, as long as its construction is based on a rigorous process that takes into account the cultural nuances in all phases of its design and application. It is also important that the tests are adapted to reflect the country’s unique linguistic and cultural contexts. Additionally, local validation ensures that the tests measure the different dimensions in a reliable manner, and specific cultural norms are established in order to interpret the results correctly. Lastly, the individuals responsible for interpreting the tests must be able to make sense of the results and nuance them according to the cultural context in order to maximise their applicability for individuals and organisations.
