Ability Tests

The most commonly used ability tests are verbal, numerical and abstract reasoning. Generally verbal reasoning tests are used for managerial roles and abstract/diagrammatic reasoning tests for more technical roles

Research findings indicate that ability tests have generally higher levels of predictive validity than other assessment methods such as interviewing. However, well designed structured (e.g. criterion based interviews) can come close to the validity of ability tests.

They are a more accurate method of assessing intellectual strength than interview alone. There is a strong correlation between interviewer assessment of intellectual strength and the candidate's interpersonal skills. Thus, a candidate with strong interpersonal skills, verbal fluency etc. will often be thought of as more "intelligent" than a candidate with weaker interpersonal skills.

They can be useful as a means of identifying potential amongst those with little work experience or in junior roles.

Numerical reasoning tests tend to be more effected by attainment (e.g. experience of working with figures) than verbal reasoning tests.

Although useful when assessing senior managers, the candidates achievements and track record may be as valid an indicator of applied ability. Moreover research suggests that there is a decline in performance on ability tests with age.

Many of the widely used ability tests do not tell us anything about a person's cognitive style, approach to problem solving, ability to deal with complexity and ambiguity or creativity. However, there are tests designed for these purposes.

Personality Measures

There is less agreement about the predictive validity of personality measures for selection, although the most widely quoted research places them in between interviews and ability tests.

Not all personality questionnaires are suitable for selection purposes. Some are better placed to be used for development and coaching.

Personality measures can be useful for identifying areas for further probing at interview. Some organisations use personality "profiles" as a way of selecting candidates. There are many risks in this approach such as "cloning", not encouraging diversity and not accounting for future needs of the business, e.g. the profile you need today may not be the one needed tomorrow.

Personality measures are widely used for senior management assessment/selection, where there is the opportunity to provide full feedback to the candidate and for development purposes.

Some measures are more transparent than others and so candidates may answer in the way they think they should answer. This problem is minimised when feedback is given or they are used for development.

Personality measures need careful and skilled interpretation if they are to be useful. For example the interpreter needs to be able to link the results to the context of the job demands; for example a structured as opposed to unstructured environment.

Personality measures report on typical behaviour not abilities. All too often however, ability is inferred from the results. For example just because a candidate does not like detail, does not mean they cannot work with detail. However, this does give an indication of an area to probe at interview if it is important to the role. Hence the reason that personality measures are more powerful when used in a feedback situation.

The table below illustrates some of the more popular personality/behavioural based measures

Test/Measure	Comment
General Personality 16PF OPQ HJ17 Hogan PinPoint NEO Five Factor Model	Equivalent personality measures generally suitable for selection and development
General Personality MBTI Jung Type Indicator Insights Firo Elements	Suitable for development and teambuilding and selection at senior levels where full feedback is provided.
Leadership Leadership Effectiveness Analysis Transformational Leadership	More targeted at assessing leadership behaviour. Suitable for development and selection at senior levels where full feedback is provided.
Motivation Individual Directions Inventory Motivation Questionnaire	Values, needs and drives. Suitable for development and selection at senior levels where full feedback is provided

Common Mistakes and Pitfalls

Not having a clear rationale for the use of occupational tests i.e. what is the objective? Why is this information needed? How can it aid/improve decision making? How do we incorporate it with other information? How does it add value?

The lack of rationale behind testing can result in a plethora of tests being used, resulting in a loss of consistency across the organisation.

Not being selective in the use of tests; e.g. using the same tests for all positions regardless of job or organisational level or insisting that everyone has to do XXX personality test (this is of course linked to the rationale).

Becoming enamoured by a particular test and not being prepared to question the value it adds.

Organisations do not often review the use of tests to assess for example, whether they are still relevant in the light of changing job demands, whether there may be new tests on the market which might be more cost effective etc.

Often organisations have enough data to carry out validity studies in terms of the link to job performance and the contribution to the selection decision, but do not invest in conducting such studies. This information however, can be invaluable in assessing the cost/benefit of using tests and also can be used for establishing normative data specific to the organisation.

Spending more than they need to either due to a sheep dip approach to testing or not checking out the availability of equivalent but cheaper tests.

Not using the information obtained during assessment/selection in a developmental context e.g. supporting the transition into a new role through coaching.