Psychometric assessments provide detailed understanding of a candidate’s cognitive abilities, behavioural and personality style, values and motivations.
People naturally want to put their best foot forward in a selection process, particularly if they really want the job. However, we also like to think that people have sufficient levels of integrity not to engage in cheating behaviour.
The failure of I/O psychologists to recognise that its basis is a quantifiable science has resulted in the blind acceptance that psychometric assessments can ultimately lead to predictions that can be quantified to a large extent.
Many people are unaware of the big business that is now Organisational Psychology. I have long argued when reporting the myths of psychology that one of the great myths is that it is a discipline driven by science. The reality however is that it is a discipline often under pinned by commercial interests. I have [...]
There are two reasons that people recommend ipsative measures for selection. The first is a mis-belief that they are less resistant to faking and therefore produce more valid results. The second is that marketing is fundamentally about having a point of difference
In this three-part blog, I will briefly discuss the basis for ipsative measurement, the issues with ipsative testing and the arguments brought forth in support.
There appears to be a resurgence of ipsative testing under the veil of CAT (Computer Adaptive Testing) for personality. Clearly there is a lot more quality research that must go on to develop a CAT for personality than the simple ipsative tests the market has seen before.
Faking in personality tests exists. Anyone who tries to deny this is either a liar or deluded. The question is what this means for the application of personality tests for selection.