Who has never been subjected to a psychometric test? There are few people who can still claim this. And if it’s the case, it’s only a matter of time. Because from high school career guidance processes and entrance exams, to recruitments, skill assessments, annual evaluations, team audit, or psychosocial risks prevention... psychometrics tests are now the norm.
But this buzz around psychometric tests isn’t all rainbows and butterflies. Although aimed at improving career decisions and giving a thumbs up to professional work, it has its pitfalls.
Formerly reserved for experienced psychologists with deep training in psychometrics, tests are now accessible to all. A certain legal vagueness even allows them to be used without prior training. As a result, mistakes are made by poorly informed users, thus compromising the quality of the analysis, the reliability of the decisions derived from it, in addition to creating human and financial prejudices. Here are three common errors.
Error 1: Choosing a Test with Sketchy Scientific Validity
Picture this: You're testing Mrs. T for your next executive assistant role, replacing the previous person who left due to her noticeable lack of organisation and initiative.
You're excited seeing Mrs. T scoring 8.7/10 in "organisation" and 7.6/10 in "initiative". Reassured by these results and satisfied to have found the right person, you hire her. But after six months, it happens again. The apparently ideal candidate shows poor skills in organisation and taking initiatives.
Discussing with a colleague experienced in tests, he informs you that the one you use is not recommended because its metric qualities are bad. It particularly lacks precision in the measured scores; the fluctuation is so great that Mrs. T, who scored 8.7/10 in "organisation," could actually only have 6.2 or 5.7, in short, a score much different from the one obtained during her assessment. This measurement error is inherent in tests but it must be as low as possible to ensure the reliability of the results, since your decisions will be based on these figures.
While this example concerns the reliability of the test, other metric qualities must be considered. You do not have to become an expert in statistical analysis but you must be an expert in choosing your psychometric assessments. To do this,
The lesson here? Choose a publisher that is transparent about the validation process of its psychometric tests and which readily provides the technical manuals presenting their psychometric properties.
Error 2: Using One Test for All
You've become a wizard in interpreting a renowned personality test while recruiting mid-level profiles for your clients. Wishing to diversify your practice, you seize the opportunity when a client asks you to assist them in recruiting a high-level manager.
Armed with your personality test, you administer it to the three competing candidates and then meet your client to give them detailed feedback as well as your recommendations.
But things go south, with the client questioning your insights as you struggle to highlight the candidates' potential in managing diverse teams, steering long-term projects, and negotiating like a pro.
Usually reputed for the quality of your analyses and the relevance of your advice, this exchange places you this time in an uncomfortable situation. Your client seems to doubt your skills since you find it difficult to reveal the potential of the candidates.
To help your client, you would have benefited from choosing a psychometric test evaluating specific managerial capabilities. In addition to providing decisive information to your client, it would have given them a better vision of each candidate's potential. The same goes for each evaluation: the choice of the test must be made according to the candidate and the need.
Error 3: Interpreting One Factor at a Time
In order not to forget anything in the analysis of your clients' results, you review one by one the factors measured by the tests. This method, although a go-to for beginners, doesn't cut it for professional use.
Take Mr. R, wondering if he's cut out to be a manager as he faces criticisms of being too lax and lacking authority. Focusing only on his "will power" score (7.4) and defining the factor doesn't satisfy Mr. R, who hoped for a deeper understanding of his situation.
Combining the "will power" with other factors like "flexibility" and "free-thinking" could have revealed his inclination towards participative rather than authoritative management, painting a richer, more nuanced picture of his managerial style, driven by human connection and innovation.
And rather than trying to change, he should have found arguments to explain and justify his choices and management style.
As Aristotle once put it, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". Therefore, diving into a psychometric test means embracing its dynamics as a whole, weaving the factors together to bring out everyone's unique hue while linking it to their personal story.
