HWD
They might see value in it and the value may not be in the accuracy of the filtering process but simply the perceived cost effectiveness of applying these blunt instruments by using external management consultants to devise and execute said processes.
I guess the proof is in the pudding. If the pilots they had recruited using these techniques turned out to be 'unsatisfactory' or 'unsuitable' I guess they would question the value of the process and use something else. All the time they get pilots that are what they wanted they must be happy, whatever way they view the 'value'.
Strafer
I can't say I have learnt how to answer questions 'correctly' because I haven't, and because you can't, that's the whole point of these tests. The questions are designed not to be as simple as 'Do you like gambling?' where the correct answer is no. The whole point is there are no right and wrong answers, just preferences which show the degree to which you hold a view or feeling or way of doing something.
They purposefully question on subjects which are not mood affected, otherwise there would be no value in the tests as the results would show no consistency whatsoever. What I have learnt to do is answer the questions as honestly as I can without trying to 'guess' what the perceived 'right' answer would be and to turn 'which do you prefer' questions into 'which do I dislike least' if I don't like either choice. That way I am consistent in my answering test after test, which will give a consistent result, be it good or bad. So far so good and no employer has told me my character is unsuited to the flight deck environment.
Remember they are just another tool in the recruiters toolbox and no airline uses these as their only method of character assessment. The idea is to get a background on someone from the test to then probe deeper at interview to see if it stands up to scrutiny. I don't know why people are so anti, it's just another test, why aren't people so anti-interview? Plenty of mistakes have been made with these over the years and probably many were when they were
the only form of selection test. Perhaps it was the unreliability of the interview that lead to their introduction? Much easier to portray something at interview that you are not than to beat a well devised question paper written by several shrinks I would have thought.
Didn't we do all this a few months back?
PP