[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