Ability of personality test experts questioned
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE competence of 'experts' in personality tests used by the country's largest employers is called into question by new research, writes Barrie Clement.
According to a company which publishes the tests, professionals with only basic training in the procedures consistently out-perform their more highly trained colleagues when predicting future job performance from test results. Non-experts were up to 10 per cent better than experts, which in statistical terms was 'massively significant'.
Specialists in the so-called 'psychometric tests' - often used when employers are selecting graduates for employment - are guilty of 'over-interpreting' the data, according to Stevan Rolls of ASE, the test publishers, and John Harris of the Cranfield Institute of Technology.
'This raises the whole question of how much you can legitimately read into test results. As publishers of the tests we are going to act on the findings, which will have far-reaching implications for all providers of personality test training, including ASE,' Mr Rolls said.
He believes that interpretation of results might have to become more statistical and less intuitive. Experts had seemed to develop 'over-confidence' in their ability and went beyond the data in forming their opinions, he said.
The study conducted by Mr Rolls and Dr Harris involved 97 personnel professionals. The paper was delivered to the recent occupational psychology conference of the British Psychological Society in Brighton.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments