[IPAC-List] Test taking advice for personality tests

[Jeff Feuquay]

Michael, et al.

You are spot on. The import of job specific personality criteria can't be
underestimated. Sometimes, I make things up to remember, because that's
often more interesting than what actually happened, but as I recall, the
Hogans ran into this some 25 years ago, long before their name became a
household word. Bob and Joyce were able to solve a problem in the basement
of a Tulsa hospital: the group of folks putting together surgical packs
were both bright and gregarious, i.e., easily distractible, and surgeons
were constantly surprised in the midst of an operation when the wrong tools
were found in the wrong packs. By getting rid of smart, cheery folks, and
selecting people not nearly so bright, who had no interest in talking to
anyone, the Hogans saved the day. The new crew paid attention to the packs
and never got either bored or creative in what they included.
Jeff
-----------------------------------------
Dr. Jeffrey P Feuquay, I/O Psychologist & Attorney
Special Counsel to Russell, Brown & Breckenridge, LLC and
Managing Consultant, Psychology-Law Center, LLC
108 W. Walnut, PO Drawer J, Nevada, Mo 64772
ofc: 417-667-5076   cell: 417-549-0997



On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Blair, Michael [HR] <
Michael.Blair at sprint.com> wrote:


> Pat -

> There is a plethora of good validation evidence for personality tests

> based on the Five-Factor model.  Conscientiousness often reports validity

> coefficients second only to general intelligence (and work sample tests).

>  Most of the major players in the assessment arena (e.g., SHL-PreVisor,

> Kenexa, DDI, Aon) offer tests based on the Big Five.  Specific tests that I

> am aware of that have been validated for pre-employment purposes in public

> sector, private sector, and public safety include the Hogan Personality

> Inventory (HPI), the 16-PF (based a model pre-dating the Big Five), the

> California Personality Inventory (CPI), as well as several that are

> variations on the Myers-Briggs (can’t think of the assessment titles).

> The key, in my opinion, is a local validation effort.  This is where the

> writer from the blog that Joel referenced at the start of this listserv

> topic is all washed-up.  He makes an assumption that all personality-based

> tests are scored the same way.  In reality, applicability, use, and scoring

> should vary by the job, which is where the local validation study comes in.

>  The writer lays out a “cheat-sheet” emphasizing extroversion, as one

> example, with high scores being the desired characteristic.  In fact, the

> validation study will determine if extroversion is related to successful

> job performance or not.  It is entirely possible (and I have seen it in

> practice) that extroversion-related attributes will translate into a high

> score for one job and a low score for another.  For example, if I’m hiring

> for a position that will be representing the company at conferences, in the

> media, etc., extroversion is desirable. If I’m hiring for an IT backroom

> coder, the last thing I want is an extrovert.  I might use the same test

> for each position, assuming it validated for each, but the scoring model

> and the “pass/fail” criteria would be quite different.

> _________________________________

> Michael Blair

> Manager Recruitment

> Network Operations, Wholesale & Recruitment Technology

> Office: 913-439-5222/ Wireless: 913-832-6130

> michael.blair at sprint.com<mailto:michael.blair at sprint.com>

> www.linkedin.com/in/blairmichaeld<http://www.linkedin.com/in/blairmichaeld

> >

>

> From: Patrick McCoy [mailto:Patrick.McCoy at psc-cfp.gc.ca]

> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 12:42 PM

> To: rene.shekerjian at cs.state.ny.us; ipac-list at ipacweb.org; Mark Hammer;

> Blair, Michael [HR]

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

>

> 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<mailto:

> 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<mailto:

> 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<mailto:

> 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

>

> ________________________________

>

> This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for

> the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you

> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all

> copies of the message.

>

> >

> 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.

>

> ________________________________

>

> This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for

> the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you

> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all

> copies of the message.

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

>