[IPAC-List] Test taking advice for personality tests

Winfred Arthur, Jr. w-arthur at neo.tamu.edu
Tue Nov 15 15:15:25 EST 2011

this stuff/debate [??] has been ongoing for a while now. you might want
to take a look at the Hough and Oswald (2008) focal piece in IOOP; it
provides some pretty informative summaries. for instance, on p. 274,
they note that "personality variables predict overall managerial
effectiveness, promotion, and managerial level".

i also believe the Hogan Personality Inventory (and other commercially
available measures from other consulting firms as well) has been
effectively used in managerial selection.

hope this is helpful.

- winfred

On 11/15/2011 12:42 PM, Patrick McCoy wrote:

> Michael-


> Would appreciate if you could list a few good ones for which solid

> validity evidence is available when they are used to assess applicants

> to professional jobs (applicants not incumbents).


> Many thanks,


> Pat McCoy


>>>> "Blair, Michael [HR]"<Michael.Blair at sprint.com> 2011/11/15 12:25

> PM>>>

> Pat -

> If by self-report you mean the numerous free personality tests floating

> around on the web, I think the answer is no even though many are based

> on more comprehensive assessments that have been validated.


> Of course most personality tests are self-report measures and there are

> a variety of very good ones offered by reputable assessment firms that

> have been validated for numerous jobs.


> Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!


> ----- Reply message -----

> From: "Patrick McCoy"<Patrick.McCoy at psc-cfp.gc.ca>

> Date: Tue, Nov 15, 2011 10:58 am

> Subject: [IPAC-List] Test taking advice for personality tests

> To: "Rene Shekerjian"<Rene.Shekerjian at cs.state.ny.us>, "IPAC-List"

> <IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>, "Mark Hammer"<Mark.Hammer at psc-cfp.gc.ca>


> Some (many?) of the self-report personality tools do seem to have

> overly

> simplistic assumptions and probably can be "gamed" by many candidates.


> Does anyone know of any self-report personality measures for which

> there is sound evidence of validity when used with applicants to

> professional jobs?


> Pat McCoy

> Ottawa, Canada



>>>> "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




More information about the IPAC-List mailing list