Psychometric Test

[NTM]

Anybody knows where I can take a Psychometic Assessement test ??
I know Oxford gives out a three day course with all kind of testings. But they don't administer the one test, I am intersted in, separately.
It is for GF, they require one. It could even be an old one.
I took one with my current airline, but they won't give me my resulys, stating it is the company's property now.

Thanks

LAter..:ok:

[Hawk]

Oh dear ASFKAP...how does it feel to know you had to fake it to get what you think was an acceptable result.;)

In terms of personality inventories NTF, to try to answer consistently on questions you THINK they want a similiar response too would not be honest, it will be picked up and you risk your answer sheet being binned. You could ask the psychologist administering the testing at the beginning of the session and be guided by their response. Remember they are their to give you the best opportunity to do well within the guidelines laid down for that particular test.

As a generalisation, with no particular reference to you..If we assumed that (a) they were looking for the profile suggested by ASFKAP and (b) were magically able to fake it through. What would you do then? Have to pretend you share the same values and attitudes as that employer for the rest of your career? I'd have thought it would be better to know earlier and then find an employer who might be a better "fit".

The only people qualified to give you the sort of assistance in advance, that ASFKAP in his example multiple question :hmm: is referring too would be a psychologist specialist in psychometric testing and to do that they would risk severe sanctions for ethics violations and risk loss of licence.

Testing is only one part of the interview processs and is given different weightings depending upon the employer. Regardless of the unpopularity of this phase of the interview process, it clearly works from the employer's point of view. Psychometric testing has been in place for quite a number of years. Employers do not waste the huge financial investment if they are not satisfied with the predictive value of the process.

ASFKAP's suggested site looks a sensible one, although as you have completed this process before you may be aware of most of those tips.

Be very cautious about taking too much notice of those offering you the magic formula for getting through this sort of session. The best opportunity you have to be successful in personality inventories is to complete your responses as honestly as you can. Believe it or not they are NOT actually out to trick you.(boring I know :zzz: ).

Good luck with it.:ok:

[df1]

I am inclined to agree with ASFKAP. As someone who has interviewed on previous occassions I am suspicious of the results of these tests.

I much prefer a traditional interview where the candidate is given the opportunity to discuss his or her suitablities for the post. And when doing a psychometric test prior to interview one can often find wildly differing results! On one occassion the psycometric test, once analysed, seemed to indicate a particular applicant as unsuitable (but on my insistence they were recalled for interview). That susequent interview was a total turn around and much to our surprise we found a talented and "most suitable" individual. That person is now a successful member of that company! Another occassion saw the opposite! We ran the tests for about 18 months and then eventually scrapped them - official company findings were that they were "unreliable" and "in the majority of cases a misrepresentation of the candidates suitability or otherwise". The tests were handled by an agency.

My findings (I am no expert) suggest that the test is unreliable in certain circumstances - and therefore is potential unfair or dangerous. In my experience the results were wishy-washy - the candidate getting the blame for not completing the test properly.

Putting the boot on the other foot I also attempted a test recently. I found it to be an odd experience! I like to keep an open mind and was quite looking forward to the exercise. The test itself was a disappointment. Firstly, the explanation of the test instructions was inadequate! Secondly the test was full of seemingly odd questions which genuinely seemed difficult to answer. There were frequent repetitions of the same question (phrased differently). And to my dismay, there were boxes for the apparently "indecisive" of us to tick! I was deemed to be a character that I am not! Others were amused with the results. As it was a lighthearted exercise we were not too bothered.

I am open minded on this subject but am I right in considering these tests unfair and unreliable? Are pilots right to be tested in this way? Maybe, as naturally inquisitive and adaptable individuals we feel that we have to answer the test as "we" think it should be answered and therefore we defeat the principle! If thats the case then we may do well to remember that we are only human and that the many facets of our lives - from career to family - are all about adapting our personalities, traits and ideas to fit ever changing demands! If you want to get to know the real inner person then that you definitley will never glean from a paper questionaire! Sure, you may be able to distinguish between a lunatic and a sane person - but that can be done by interview!

[FougaMagister]

Totally agree! These tests not only give a (sometimes wildly inacurrate) "snapshot" view of a candidate, but they cannot possibly tell the recruiters anything they wouldn't learn by interviewing the candidate for 30-45 minutes. There lies the problem: the HR (or training department) wants to take it easy on themselves - after all, it only takes a few seconds to assess a psychometric test, while to interview each and every candidate lucky enough to be offered an assessment takes hours (or days) and is way more demanding.

Also, these tests (I have sampled a few) are not "culturally" neutral, i.e. it takes us foreigners quite a bit longer to read and interpret (NOT translate) the meaning of such questions, and some subtle nuances between two questions might be lost on us. Bottom line: we might either not finish the test in time, or the result might be skewed and unreliable. Either way, non-native English speaking candidates (even those like myself who have been working and living in Britain for years) might well be at a disadvantage - while, again, this would not so much be the case during a proper interview.

Just a thought...

Cheers.

[Pilot Pete]

With due respect to those who feel the benefit of these tests is marginal I would like to point out that I have completed two of them for different airline selections and had feedback.

I answered the questions openly and honestly (as I felt I had nothing to hide) and I was astonished at the 'profile' that was attributed to me. It was me to an absolute tee.

I don't know which tests you guys sat, but judging by the example question posted above I think it was a pretty simplistic and not very scientific one. Myers Briggs are one of the big players in this field and their tests are a lot more complex than simply 'do you act like an adult making polite conversation at a party or do you act like a bombastic idiot?' They are very clever and yes they do repeat questions in a roundabout way looking for consistency and the degree to which you hold the expressed preference. The biggest thing to remember is that there are no right and wrong answers, only preferences and by trying to select what you think the 'right' answer is means that you risk altering your profile into something you are not and possibly then not what the employer wants.......you will never know because you certainly won't get feedback if you have been unsuccessful!

If you have to lie to 'give the (perceived) right impression' then you really should be questioning your own suitability for the career you have picked! They are pretty much looking for the old 'stable extrovert', just not quite as pronounced as before IMHO so I think people have nothing to fear from these tests if they are just like the rest of us........average Joe pilots.

It's interesting to hear that some people think the tests are worthless. Many, many companies and industries are using psychometrics and an awful lot of them see them as money well spent. That tells me that for every candidate who manages to 'dupe' them and slip through the net an awful lot don't and the company are pleased with the results overall. They are never a substitute for the personal interview, merely another 'filter' to whittle down the interview candidates to a manageable number. It is much cheaper to run these tests for two dozen candidates alongside numerical and verbal reasoning tests and to only interview 5 who are your best five, for say 2 job vacancies.

Try a search on Google and you will find a host of sites offering sample tests and giving you your profile (you know the old ESTJ etc etc). Well worth reading and trying a few just to find out if (when you have answered honestly) they categorise you correctly. Of course it could be that your perception of your personality trait is completely at odds from how other people perceive you! I think there is a personality type for that......now what was it called.............?;)

PP

[Lost_luggage34]

I think ASFKAP hit the nail well and truly on the head !!

[df1]

I wonder what would happen if an applicant were to sit the same test, say, five times? Assume he or she forgets their previous answers and completes it normally and truthfully. It is likely that you will get differing results on each occasion - due to mood, pressures, stesses, health (which are variables in this equation).

And, we pilots are not immune from the little irritants of life. In some cases we are more likley to suffer from them. But its how you conduct yourself proffesionally that counts. You don't turn up at despatch ranting and raving about the row you just had with your wife and gritting your teeth in anger, of course not. You have to instill calm and remain focussed on the task at hand.

I think its that some of us don't trust a pyschometric test to give a fair and truthful portrayal of ourselves especially at one (and possibly the first) attempt. And how are we sure that our prospective employer is using a fair test, as PP suggests there may be differing standards out there? Also, I note that there is no continued assessment (psychometric testing) of employees once they have got their job - we just do a CRM course! Surely, if these tests were as accurate and as useful as claimed there could be a reason for continual assessment of the workforce. (remember, personalities and outlooks change with time). Or are they considered effective only for an initial assessment?

[Pilot Pete]

I'm no expert, far from it, but I thought that personality was fixed from an early age and behaviour is what we change due to mood etc etc.

I think these tests define personality type and as such, if you answer truthfully every time you should get a very similar result. They find preferences which define personality and I would have thought wouldn't change with mood; I guess it's a bit like saying if you don't like brocolli(George Bush Snr wasn't it?) when you're happy and unstressed you still aren't going to like it when you are unhappy and stressed! The (good) tests are very cleverly thought out and allow for all the permutations in our lives so as to give consistent results, they are worthless if they don't.

With that in mind, I think companies want to find out if your personality fits their culture and like I say, if you are one that fits now it's highly unlikely that you are going to become someone completely diffent a year or two later down the line, hence no need to test again, only to try to influence and teach appropriate behaviour (your CRM refresher training!)

I do agree that HR are driving more and more recruitment throughout industry and not just in aviation where I think it's still releatively small and as such need to justify their existence. Maybe that's why they run so many different tests before offering a job, but, most companies seem very happy with the output (me and you!) and that's why these tests are probably here to stay. Like 'em or loathe them, if you want a job it makes sense to get a thorough understanding of them and work out your personality type (with the many free online tests and explaination websites) and then get the honest opinions of those who know you best; let them read your personality type and see if they say 'that's exactly you!' You may be surprised.

PP

[PAXboy]

I have met these in my field of telecommunications. The one I recall the most vividly was badly administered and made me feel like the classic 'number' not a person. By the time I was half way through, I knew that I did not want to work for a company that treated me like that!

These tests are, in my opinion, an attempt to make the recruitment process 'scientific'. I agree with those that have said the HR department want the easy route - after all, an experienced interviewer might have taken 20 years to get the knowledge and cost a lot more money than some kiddie armed with these bits of paper!

What irritated me most about these tests is that they attempted to put me into their categories. No attempt to find out what my category is. On many of the questions (I have had these tests at least twice, possibly three times) I felt that the one line question and half sentence were insufficient information upon which to make a decision. OK, OK, someone will say "But that is how it is in life!" True but the key aspect of hiring a person is that you want to know their reasoning and why they made the decision. Simply ticking the box does not get down to the real person. The testers say that it does - so we have a stalemate.

It is my view that these tests produce an homogenous work force and the bright sparks and the ones with an unusual approach are weeded out. I have no doubt that 1,000 employers would shout me down but it is simple - I will not work for any company (even on contract) that asks for one of these tests.

To quote the man, "I am not a number!".

[Pilot Pete]

A lot does come down to how the company in question defines what they want from a test. I agree with some of your views Paxboy that if a company sets a requirement for every candidate to be of a specific type then they are in danger of getting a workforce which is particularly, how shall I put it, 'bland'.

What they are trying to do is weed out those that are totally unsuitable due to their results, thus getting the numbers down to a sensible level for taking the process further. I can't see any problem in that, just like I can't see any problem in them rejecting candidates due to low scores in an aptitude test or interviewing badly. It's all part of the process.

Here's an extract from jobs.financialdirector.co.uk which I think explains the processes quite effectively;


Psychometric testing
An introduction



Psychometrics is a loosely used word that has created a whole industry of occupational testing and employee assessment. It covers a variety of tests that are used to assess the character strengths and weaknesses of a candidate, providing accurate profiles of their suitability for a position.
What are psychometric tests?
Psychometric tests are often used by employers as part of their selection process. Basically, psychometric tests are tools for measuring the mind ('metric' = measure; 'psycho' = mind). There are two types of psychometric tests:


Aptitude tests: which assess your abilities
Personality questionnaires: which help to build up a profile of your characteristics and personality
How are they used by employers?
Employers can use these tests at any point during the selection process. Sometimes they are used at the beginning, as a way of screening out unsuitable candidates. Other employers prefer to use them towards the end of a selection process.

But don't panic; psychometric tests are almost always used in conjunction with more traditional selection methods, such as a one-to-one interview. This means that even if you don't do brilliantly with psychometric tests, you can still impress the selectors in other ways.

Why are they used?
Many employers believe that psychometric tests give an accurate prediction of whether you are able to do the job and whether your character is suited to the work. Research shows that, statistically speaking, psychometric tests are one of the most reliable forms of revealing whether or not a candidate is suitable for a job.

How can I prepare for the tests?
Unlike GCSEs and 'A' levels, psychometric tests are not testing your knowledge or memory. They are testing your aptitude for various tasks or trying to reveal a more accurate assessment of your personality and temperament in the workplace. However, it does pay to familiarise yourself with typical questions, particularly in aptitude tests. Quite often a mediocre score can be vastly improved with practice.

Aptitude tests
Also known as cognitive, ability or intelligence tests, these do not examine your general knowledge but test your critical reasoning skills under strictly timed conditions. There are many different types of tests depending on the type and level of job you're applying for. However, a typical test might have three different sections each testing a different ability e.g. verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning and diagrammatic or spatial reasoning. Typically, the test would allow 30 minutes for 30 or more questions.

Your score on these tests is compared to a 'norm group' which is usually made up of current jobholders who have done this test in the past. Employers can set their own standard in terms of how well you have to do in comparison with the 'norm group' in order to 'pass'. But as a general rule of thumb you should try to complete 70 – 80 per cent of the questions and aim to correctly answer at least two thirds of those which you've answered.

Personality questionnaires
Even if you score well in aptitude tests, this doesn't necessarily mean that you will be suited to a job. You can be good at something, but hate doing it! Success in a job also depends on your personal characteristics and qualities. Personality questionnaires can measure these.

Questions focus on a variety of personality aspects such as:

How you relate to other people
Your work style
Your ability to deal with emotions (your own and other people's)
Your motivation, determination and general outlook
Your ability to handle stressful situations
Unlike aptitude tests, there are no right and wrong answers, although occasionally there is a time limit. Selectors will not be looking for a particular type of 'profile' but certain characteristics which are suited to the job.

How should I answer the questions?
Many employers want candidates with a balance of personal qualities: for example, being able to get on with people, take charge and organise, and being focused on achievement. But don't try and second guess the answers that they want. There are often checks within questionnaires to detect whether you are giving a false picture of yourself. Corny as it sounds, it's probably best just to be yourself: ultimately neither you nor the employer will be happy if the real you is not on display at work.




So again I'll say it, like it or not these tests do give results which an employer who is using them can base part of his 'suitability' decision on. I'm sure you can give the impression that you are something that you are not, but lets face it, people have been doing this for years in interviews. The psychometric test is just another tool to try and weed these candidates out and to find what they are really like, yes I agree, maybe by using a slightly more scientific method. Why should you have a problem with that? You don't have a problem with the doctor using ever more scientific methods to ascertain your health every 12 months?

A good candidate is a good candidate and will do well in a selection process. I'm sure you'd agree that a good candidate is prepared for what they are going to face during selection through preparation and someone who oozes natural ability but doesn't bother preparing only to not show their best can only be classed as an unsuitable candidate. What we have to remember, especially in our industry is that the competition for flying jobs is intense and the supply outstrips the demand. All the time that this prevails (and I'm lead to believe by the older and bolder that this is always the case in aviation) then there will be a plentiful supply of suitable candidates, even when the chaff have been removed by these selection tests, so you really must do yourself justice by giving yourself the best chance of success.

PP

[PAXboy]

Hhmm, interesting. I can see how the wide swath of the process might work and an individual experience is just that - individual.

The interview that included one of these that sticks in my mind was this: I loved the job description and knew the company from having been a customer of theirs. I liked their products and knew someone who worked for them, who had given positive feedback and encouragement to apply.

During the interview, I became more excited at what I heard and the prospect of working for them. I felt the job to be within my capabilities and a 'medium' sized stretch.

I was then given these forms to fill in and they puzzeled me in that many of the questions were infantile and dealt with scenarios of the kind that you play at parties. I continually found that the list of answers presented did not provide the ones that I wished to give. So, obviously I was the wrong person for them.

I walked into the building looking forward to the chance to work for a company that attracted me and making my best pitch. I left feeling like they had no interest in me as a person and what I could bring to the job. I was disillusioned in the company and, as a customer, never trusted them again.

such is life :hmm:

[df1]

PP,

Thanks for the exerpt on psychometric testing. I for one will re-consider my position on pschometric testing (only if I appear to be doing well at them of course ;) ).

But seriously, I agree that they are here to stay, in some form or other and that when the time comes to apply for another job - by choice or otherwise - it is likely that we will have to contend with one. Its best to keep a positive attitude when tackling any selection process, whether you are scaling a scramble net or displaying teamwork in a "build an impossible bridge" exercise.

The thing I find a little concerning is the fact that there are a significant number of voices against this particular kind of testing (we say testing, but its more of an analysis than a test) and many of these voices are from within the recruitment quarters. The whole purpose of a selection process is for the prospective employer to assess the candidate and for the candidate to assess the employer. I once attended a selection where I gradually became dissatisfied with the company - in particular my prospective boss. I am glad that I had the opportunity to sit face to face and return fire with some of my questions. He was totally ill prepared for the interview and when I quizzed him about his companies financial outlook and business plan for the forthcoming year he balked completely! I didn't get the job (I think I was second) but I wouldn't have taken it anyway. But the ironic twist came when his secretary called me about two weeks later and asked if I still wanted the job (number 1 had also decided against), I declined. "So what?", you say, but if I had taken the job I would have been out of work again in six months - the company went under for bad business!

Where do psychometrics come into this? Well, its a little unfair to blame in this case, but at least i had a chance to get to know the company before I made any major moves. An interview with all the right questions (in both directions) set the record straight in my mind. The problem is companies finding it all too easy to hide behind a selection process thats shrouded in secrecy! I don't mind doing a psychometric test again having listened to the advice of PP, but I would prefer it to be at a later stage in the process where I have decided that I like the look of things and that my errors in ticking the odd wrong box won't go against me.

Of course Beggars can't be choosers!

[PAXboy]

df1 - a cautionery tale indeed. At one interview (without said test) I knew that this was not the right manager or company for me but I had been unemployed for over a year (recession of the early 90s) and I had to take the job. I stuck it for 18 months before walking out. That gut feeling is usually the right one!

However, these 'tests' are indeed here to stay. Some companies request that you fill in the application form by hand as they do handwriting analysis.

They will choose anything that they think gives them more info. However, I am biased in that my father was a professional personnel manager and, later, executive head hunter for 20 years. He was of the old school and thought the term Human Resources very poor. His opinion was that an experienced and competent interviewer could find out all that was needed from the letter of application and a face to face with the person. This should then be followed up by a phone call to their previous employers, because people will say things on the phone that they will not put in writing. Or, simply, the things they do not say!

[Pilot Pete]

I've just tried to put the 'open minded' case when it comes to psychometric testing, and personality profiling in particular which is what most of us think of when the 'psycho' word is used.

My theory with these tests is that you MUST remain open minded and honest when answering the questions and don't start thinking they are below you or that there is no answer that you would want to put. It's preferences and you have to decide which you prefer, not necessarily which one is you to a tee, taken together with all the other questions the individual ones that appear repetitive, but slightly different build up your degree of 'x' or 'y' trait.

I again agree with you Paxboy that good interviewers can find out all they need to know about a candidate in a one-on-one, but what if the interviewee is very good at lying (a la Niel Robertson perhaps!), maybe, just maybe this kind of profiling together with an interview could have posed some doubt? Again, it's just another tool in the box to use to complement the interview, not to substitute for the interview and any company that uses it to make up for bad interviewers is frankly probably not one you would want to work for.

df1 - I think you have slightly missed the point when you sayI don't mind doing a psychometric test again having listened to the advice of PP, but I would prefer it to be at a later stage in the process where I have decided that I like the look of things and that my errors in ticking the odd wrong box won't go against me.

There are no 'wrong' boxes, there are no 'right' answers. It's not a test, it's a profile and to give an honest view of yourself you must answer honestly, not for fear of being 'wrong' but to ensure your profile is correct in the eyes of the selection team. If you have undesireable characteristics then you need to worry, but you would do anyway with just an interview! Many people seem to cock these profile tests up for thinking that there are right answers and trying to second guess what the 'right' answer is. The biggest danger is that you are perfectly suitable in character but you portray an undesireable profile through 'second guessing' and trying to be something that you are not!

My advice is to practice verbal and numerical and aptitude tests as much as possible before a selection process as your scores can be increased significantly with exposure. As for the profiling I would advise getting online and doing the freebie tests and practice being honest, open minded and answering from the heart. Read your profile from the results and see if you think it correctly portrays you. Also get your nearest and dearest to read the profile and tell you honestly if they feel it is you. Often our own view of ourselves is somewhat different to other people's. Prepatration helps to give the right impression, and as I've said, the best candidate is one who is best prepared and who displays themselves better than the others. View the tests as the hurdles you need to cross to get the job offer, don't lose sight of the aim and think positive!

PP