[IPAC-List] Test taking advice for personality tests

[Mark Hammer]

Personally, I think it is a reasonable consideration.  So, no ducking
required AFAIC.
 
I think there is always the challenge of anticipating why the candidate
thinks they were rejected, and whether they think that is reasonable
grounds for rejection.  Some years back, I was trying to make a case for
incorporating what we know about wisdom as a measurable construct when
it comes to selection of managerial candidates.  I think everybody would
like to work for a manager whom they consider as wise.  The trouble is,
if you were a candidate for a managerial position, would YOU want to be
rejected "because you weren't deemed wise enough"?  At a certain point,
the manner in which candidates conceptualize the selection criteria
transforms their lack of success in the competition from something akin
to a lottery ("Sorry, try again") into a more profound judgment on them
as a person, and - rightly or wrongly - they take personal offense to
it.
 
I forget where I read it, but I recall a chapter in an edited book a
decade or so back, where the writer suggested that being able to "fake
good" on personality tests should be viewed not in terms of compromising
the validity of the test, but in terms of identifying people who
understood the organizational culture well, and might just fit in well. 
An odd twist to the way we'd prefer to think of such instruments,
especially well-developed ones, but not one I'd dismiss out of hand,
either.
 
Mark Hammer
Ottawa


>>> "Shekerjian, Rene" <Rene.Shekerjian at cs.state.ny.us> 2011/11/15

11:21 AM >>>
Okay, devil's advocate here (gets ready to duck).

If the various "psych-out-the test" posting are correct in what they
identify as the correct answers to the integrity tests (and similar
instruments) used by stores such as Best Buy, then I can see how it
appears that they throw good candidates for a loop. And yes, I
understand that the tests may have been validated in some fashion.

However, if there is some truth to what they say, my sense is that if
you are extremely honest and thoughtful, and answer the questions
sincerely, there is a good chance you are going to come up with answers
that do not line up with the "key." 

I freely admit that I do not know how integrity tests and
conscientiousness tests work other than from a very cursory standpoint.
But I will note that there is some substantial controversy in the IO
literature about how effective such tests are. And given that, is it not
reasonable for your average citizen to have doubts? And if that person
is trying to get a job and feels unjustly rejected, might that not
create some hard feelings?

Just a thought...

René 

René Shekerjian | Testing Services Division | NYS Department of Civil
Service | 
======================================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Hammer [mailto:Mark.Hammer at psc-cfp.gc.ca] 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:01 AM
To: IPAC-List
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Test taking advice for personality tests

What stands out most for me is the rather adversarial nature of the
site.  And of course, the posted comments only further express the
"us-vs-them" mentality many have adopted.

Now, I won't stand up and proclaim that ALL employers know what
they're
doing when it comes to using personality instruments for selection
purposes, or approach selection with only benevolence in mind, but at
least one of the objectives is to place people in jobs they will be
happy in because they are well-suited to it.  Why on earth people
would
wish to mis-portray themselves to be able to weasel into jobs they
will
likely not intend to stay in is beyond me.  How they expect to receive
glowing performance reviews in positions that conflict with their
"natural tendencies" is also beyond me.

Having said that, you will note that the term used on the site is
personality "test", not personality instrument or battery or
assessment,
etc.  The comments are from high school students, who confuse what
they
typically encounter as "tests" with what the assessment tool is
supposed
to do.  All too often, they perceive "tests" as largely unethical
barriers to their further advancement.  As in "Hey, Mr. Hammer, I
studied really hard and came to class most of the time, with my phone
turned off most of the time, but you made the test too tricky/hard".

Personally, I think we have some homework to do with respect to
recasting assessment tools as a kind of match-making.  Rather than
"Are
you good enough to work for me?" (because most believe they are),
something more on the order of "Is this job right for you?" (where
"rejection" could be perceived as a benevolent act).

Mark Hammer
Ottawa


>>> Joel Wiesen <jwiesen at appliedpersonnelresearch.com> 2011/11/14 9:46

AM >>>
FWIW, found on the web:

http://www.ehow.com/how_4446746_pass-preemployment-personality-test.html



-- 
Joel P. Wiesen, Ph.D., Director
Applied Personnel Research
62 Candlewood Road
Scarsdale, NY 10583-6040
(617) 244-8859
http://appliedpersonnelresearch.com




Note: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or 
legally privileged information. Please do not forward any contents 
without permission. If you have received this message in error please 
destroy all copies, completely remove it from your computer, and
notify

the sender. Thank you.

_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list


>

This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt
from
disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or
re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or not
authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this
e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete
the message and any copies.

>

Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en
titre
et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou
soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute
divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est
interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou n'êtes
pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu
par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et
supprimer le courriel et les copies.      


_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list


>

This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or
re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or not
authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this
e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete
the message and any copies.
 >
Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en titre
et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou
soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute
divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est
interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou n'êtes
pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu
par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et
supprimer le courriel et les copies.