Written Personality Tests

[SimonJohnMorgan]

Hi,

My office has recently started using personality tests as part of the recruitment procedure. I think the company that makes them are PPA.These are tests where you have a list of sets of four unrelated words, and you mark the one that describes you most, and the one that describes you least. This is fed into a computer program that pumps out a several page report.

I did one of these a few years back (we were considering them previously, and I was friends with the then HR manager, she did one on me) and it was frankly laughable. It read like a cold reader had written it, with so many obviously generic statments, and probably's. "Simon likes responsibility, but feels happier with a senior manager as backup" ... my interpretation ... "Simon likes power without responsibility" ... don't most people? etc etc. I think when it said I was "smooth and charming" that it lost credibility, although it gave some people round the office a bit of a laugh.

Anyway being lazy, I thought if anyone here had researched such things, and could answer the following...

1) Is there any decent study available on such things. I'm assuming these things aren't up to much / are rubbish, but am willing to be proved wrong.

2) Are there any legal precedents of someone suing over not getting a job because of such a test. (UK example preferred, but any will do.)

I wasn't sure whether or not to put this in the paranormal section, as I *think* it's just computerised generic statement creation which is one of the (many) things cold-readers begin with.

I've decided to sent a polite e-mail to the HR manager about it, asking about the specifics of the test we use, and was emphasis we place on it.

I'll keep you posted... (unless someone points out a study showing it's actually valid.)

Cheers

Simon

 

[Jeff Corey]

There are a lot of test out there and they vary greatly in both reliability and validity. If you discover the name of the test, I'll check it out.
Jeff

 

[SimonJohnMorgan]

Thanks Jeff, I'll find out tomorrow (I'll try anyway.)

Well it's 11:15 PM in the UK, so as Zebedee* would say ... time for bed.

Simon

*UK pop-culture reference. In the 70's/80's there was childrens TV programme called The Magic Roundabout, and at the end, one of the characters (zebedee) would say it was time for bed. Actually this a French programme, but the guy who translated it didn't like the stories, so he rewrote them according to the actions of the characters.

 

[Dr. Imago]

I agree with Jeff, and also he's the man to defer to being an expert psychologist.

I had similar experience taking one of these "personality tests" a few years ago as part of a team-building exercise with my company. Except, we had to basically select "option A" or "option B" on a series of only about 20 questions. I found, in many instances, neither applied to how I'd handle the situation. In the end, my report, too, read as an astrology column. I had the feeling that you could probably shuffle everyone's in the room and hand them out randomly, and most would've been impressed... and, the funny thing was that this was a room full of MD's, PhD's and research scientists! At the actual team building exercise when everyone's "personality" was read out, I simply asked to see the documentation that validated this test. Instead of answering me seriously, the "facilitator" made a joke out of my question and ascribed it to one of the vague traits uncovered by and attributed to me on my personality survey.

I'm aware that MMPI is near tops among some of the better ones (i.e., has probably the most research/validation of all), but they require administration and interpretation by a licensed professional (e.g., CSW, psychologist, etc.). Likewise, they are not the be-all/end-all either. They still require a bit of interpretation and clarification with the patient.

In the U.S., personality tests can be given during employment screening, but they have to be relevant to the position and they cannot be given discriminately (i.e., if one applicant takes one, every applicant has to take one). My own impression is that I would probably walk out the door if someone offered one to me. But, that's based on the premise that you often cannot fully know a person's personality simply by giving them a black-and-white test.

Let us know what you find out.

-TT

 

[Barsy]

I work for an American company and we all had to have a test like the one you describe. It was given by an occupational psychologist no less. It involved choosing your favourite colours, shapes, and words (among other things).
The result looked exactly like one of those astrology things in the newspapers. 'Likes to work within a team'. 'Works better alone' It seemed to cover all the angles. I was also told as a result of the test, never to become a writer as I was too direct! Philosophy was the route for me, apparantly.
Because I chose a yellow colour as my least favourite I was told that something bad had happened to me when I was very young

My opinion is that they are definitely a waste of time and an insult to the employees.

Barsy

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I had to take one of these for my last job. The four-choice "which describes you" kind, and a few "always sometimes never" sort.
It isn't hard to figure out the answers the employers want to see.

This was followed by a phone interview of the same variety, full of vacuous questions, one of which was, "Are you addicted to smiling?"

No, I'm not kidding. I told the girl giving the test that it was the most empty survey I'd ever heard. She laughed.

 

[pgwenthold]

I am skeptical of such things. As noted, I am concerned that they tend to be simple horoscope readings, modified only slightly.

I recently stumbled across

http://www.weAttract.com/

and took their attraction test. They claim to have developed this empirically, and ask for feedback to help them improve their assessment. I took the test, and thought, yeah, that's pretty good. But just to be safe, I went back and retook the test, but instead of answering honestly, I randomly selected answers. Well, the report came back a little different, but for the most part was very similar to what I had from a legit attempt. Totally useless, vague descriptions.

These types of things really need to be baselined. You need to know what you get from random results. If you asked me how good the true description was seeing only that, I would put it at probably 95%. That looks to be great. However, the totally random approach is probably 90% accurate. Suddenly, that 95% isn't quite as impressive. Yeah, it did better than random, but not as much as one might think.

 

[SimonJohnMorgan]

Hi Jeff/All,

No reply as yet, hoping for something tomorrow.

Barsy, I love the favourite colour thing. I personally think that's full scale whacko theory. (Basically because from my limited experience, most people don't have a favourite colour, and pick at random. I would be curious to know if anyone has asked people the question X months apart, hidden amongst various other questions, and seen what correlation there is.) Again, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Simon

 

[COCT]

At hr-guide.com (your home for all things Human Resources on the internet), there is a page about personality tests as a method of personnel selection.

They list all sorts of useful tips (such as finding a test that is highly reliable and has little adverse impact. Uh-huh).

They provide information on the kinds of tests available (including examples) and things like that, and they even have a list of Advantages and Disadvantages of using personality tests.

Guess what the bottom-most item on the list of disadvantages is.

"Lack of evidence to support validity of use of personality tests"

Also...

An article about this topic at the job-search site Monster.com is smart enough to say: "HR departments should avoid making the presumption that scores on their favorite personality tests are associated with job skills. This is bad news and bad science."

COCT

 

[pgwenthold]

They provide information on the kinds of tests available (including examples) and things like that, and they even have a list of Advantages and Disadvantages of using personality tests.

Guess what the bottom-most item on the list of disadvantages is.

"Lack of evidence to support validity of use of personality tests"

Ya gotta admit, being invalid is probably a real disadvantage to the whole thing.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Vast amounts of research done on the NEO (by Costa and McCrae) show that the best predictor of job performance across all jobs is Conscientiousness (validities between .2 and .30). The best predictor for salespeople and managers is extraversion.

That means the test accounts for between 4% and 9% of the variance. Try palm readers or Tarot cards.

 

[bpesta22]

That means the test accounts for between 4% and 9% of the variance. Try palm readers or Tarot cards.

Be a skeptic-- do the math. Plug a 4% increase in validity into a utility formula and see how many dollars it can save a firm in the long run by selecting-- in part-- based on personality test scores.

The return on investment is well worth it.

Insurance companies would drool over another piece of the pie that predicts 4-9% of the variance in car accidents.

Plus, that 4% is impressive, given it's over and above what IQ Predicts.

Realize the typical employee interview-- the most often used selection method-- has less validity than this.

 

[Mercutio]

Be a skeptic-- do the math. Plug a 4% increase in validity into a utility formula and see how many dollars it can save a firm in the long run by selecting-- in part-- based on personality test scores.

The return on investment is well worth it.

Insurance companies would drool over another piece of the pie that predicts 4-9% of the variance in car accidents.

Plus, that 4% is impressive, given it's over and above what IQ Predicts.

Realize the typical employee interview-- the most often used selection method-- has less validity than this.

Excellent point--can I quote you in my stats class?

Oh, and with regard to "Some firms even use graphology to select people, and even though it has zero validity, no one will ever challenge it in court because it doesn't harm protected classes."... I have also heard of iridology testing for jobs...100 years ago it was phrenology. As for the MBTI...*grrrr*...