AF, the point I was making is that it is not always relevant as you asssume.
"In fact these days it is a fairly common practice for most employers in non aviation sectors to have their potential employees put through a battery of tests to get a better idea of who they are dealing with."
It may be common, but you are making a very large assumption that these tests WILL give "a better idea of who they are dealing with". As far as I know there is no scientific evidence that will stand up in court that any personality tests are relevent for ANY job.
"The suggestion was made that you can learn to pass these tests. Maybe the skills and aptitude but not the psychometrics. You can't fool the system on those two tests, there are too many inbuilt markers that will show if you are being honest or not. "
Sorry, that's just not true. Yes, there are lie score indices, but again, there is NO evidence that this is relevent to anyone's employability. You are making a huge assumption that what is occuring in the test is actually "lying" in the true sense of the word.
Aptitude tests certainly can be learned, there is a HUGE industry in the States preparing people for the GMAT test that you need to sit if you want to get into a good businesss school.
Yes, personality tests can be fooled. It's taught in the HR unit at good MBA schools. I can be an introverted perfectionist who builds their worldview from tiny details in one test and an extroverted "Big picture" person in the next. Myers Briggs can be fooled as well - if you know the theory behind the test, you can be an ESTJ one minute and an INFP the next.
As I said in my first post, it may be relevent to test for aptitudes, depending on the job, however if it is relevent it will have been backed by scientific research demonstrating that there is a statistically significant link between for example test scores and pass/fail rating at flight schools.
U.S. Courts hearing discrimination claims have consistently asked for evidence that personality test scores are relevent to job performance and none provided has ever been shown to be valid.
However, big bucks are made by the testing industry who purport to be able to apply tests that will distinguish between two apparently identical applicants on the basis of a few hours of questioning.
However I will say again that there is no EVIDENCE that it is relevent.
You might just as well choose by the applicants starsign.
"Sorry, you didn't pass the psychometrics" is used regularly by people who wish to discriminate against people who "don't look like one of us." I hope that it doesn't include QF.