These test do make HR look like they are doing something faster. These tests are not designed to find the golden employee but to weed out people who can’t take tests, easier “evaluations” with out actually reading applications/resumes. Filling entry level/high turn-over positions is an endless grind.
Something I get back on the tests that Indeed sends out is “requests accommodation.” I’m still not entirely sure what that means. I’m not sure if it means that they have a problem with the test, or if they have a problem with the material on it.
I stopped using the tests a while back, but for some reason, it is a default to send them unless I remember to uncheck the box when I post a new job.
I gave the honest answer in my screening a long time ago on a test for a retail clerk job where I admitted that I had probably taken pens home from work. I was told it was disqualifying because it conflicted with my answer where I denied stealing from my employer. I know this because the hiring manager told me so. I had worked with him at another retailer and he knew I was a scrupulous employee, so he got an exception from the policy to hire me. Most people who gave that answer wouldn’t have gotten the job and would never have known why.
These tests are likely used to screen out large numbers of otherwise almost indistinguishable candidates. I doubt that they are based on sound scientific principles but they will probably withstand scrutiny for impermissible bias and that’s good enough if all the hiring manager wants to do is winnow the field from 100 applicants to five candidates as cheaply and easily as possible.
I’ve heard of tests that are designed to measure honesty - not by directly asking you how honest you think you are, but by asking overlapping questions, framed in different ways; if you choose the answers you think they want to hear, rather than the answers you really believe, it shows up via cross reference.
The problem comes when those exact same tests are also sometimes used by clueless HR departments to measure other things that they certainly aren’t designed for.
Personally, I always answer them as honestly as possible (including, sometimes, giving different answers for questions like “taking” and “stealing”). I figure, if they’re actually looking for someone like me, great. If they’re looking for someone honest, and doing a good job of it, then honesty is what they’re looking for. And if they’re using it for the all-too-common BS reasons and I don’t get the job as a result, because I didn’t come up with what they thought the “right” answers were, then it’s just as well, as working at a place like that is probably not the job I wanted anyway.
I had to take a battery of tests when I applied for a promotion at my employer. At the time, they contracted with a testing agency, and I had to take several tests online, including the MMPI but also the CPI.
Afterwards, I had to go in person and take tests that were much like the SAT or GRE, with verbal, mathematics, and logical reasoning sections. I suppose it could have been an IQ test of some sort. Finally, I had a short interview discussing my interest in the job and why I thought I was a good fit.
I question why the company didn’t trust the HR department and the hiring mangers to make decisions, choosing to pay large sums to a consulting firm. But they did take the results seriously; I heard of two people who were denied positions based on their results from these assessments.
On the whole, the MMPI and CPI seemed like they were trying to discover people with borderline personality disorders, but I remember being confused by the reason for some of the questions. I recall being asked if I preferred cats to dogs on more than one test, and if I thought Lincoln was a greater president than Washington. Apparently these were masculine/feminine questions, though I’m not really sure why.
When I took it in 1985, one of the the MMPI’s stated** goals was to identify closeted homosexuals (intelligence agencies did not hire homosexuals at the time). The American Psychiatric Association began to revise its opinion that homosexuality was not a mental disorder in 1973, but it was not until 1987 that this was finalized. (The MMPI was first published around 1940.)
So those male/female kinds of questions were devised (apparently based on the consensus of the psychological community of the day) to slip past closeted homosexuals’ defenses.
FWIW if those two questions were on the test I took, I would have chosen ‘cats’ and ‘Lincoln’ (I presume Washington’s military accomplishments made him the ‘masculine’ choice). Both ‘feminine’ responses. Knowing what I do now, I would have answered differently. And just to play it safe, challenged the psychologist to arm-wrestle me.
**Stated by the test designers, but not made known to the test takers.
I took the test in 2005, so I’m not sure what this was supposed to tell them. I answered “cats,” and “Lincoln,” BTW.
Just because they’re not using those questions for anything any more, you don’t expect them to stop asking them, do you?
“You . . . You want to hold my hand?”
(Placing hand over heart) “For America!”
If I am not mistaken, the MMPI is truly a MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC test, and using it for any other purpose, especially a non-medical purpose, is or ought to be illegal. I’m pretty sure that it was NEVER meant to be used for HR hiring decisions.
The meaning of the various questions and their various answers is determined by statistical comparisons of a large corpus of responses, compared to a known base of responses from already-diagnosed cases.
In other words, for example, the statement “Strange odors come to me at times” doesn’t diagnose anything in itself; it may simply be a statement that a large number of diagnosed schizophrenics say “Yes” to and a large number of not-diagnosed not-schizophrenics say “No” to.
One place I worked, the management mused about having people take down all the cartoons posted on their office bulletin boards. Dilbert was popular at the time which poked fun at management methods, and the company was far enough behind the trends that they adopted the latest management fad about the time Dilbert made fun of it. (Apparently the biggest question at the time in many companies was “does the author work for us??”)
Sure enough, the next comic to go up was:
Boss [thinking]: “Profits are low, morale is low. What is the root problem? It’s got to be those anti-management cartoons the employees hang on their cubicle walls!”
Boss [speaking]: “And they aren’t even funny.”
Wally: [pointing to cartoon] “This one has our mission statement.”
The tests generally are affected by the Heisenberg principle - the observer affects the outcome of the observation. People know they are taking a test and the observer is looking for specific answers, so generally tend to reply what they think the observer wants to hear.
I like cats because my parents had a cat when I was very young, and the only dog we had was my step-brother’s much later, was high-maintenance and I had to help look after it when my step-brother couldn’t be bothered. I don’t like sports because I skipped a grade and was smallest in my class for years. yet, I am a confirmed heterosexual. Lincoln vs. Washington? sounds more like a question designed to determine skin colour (or immigration status - newcomers may not know the distinction). Plus, Washington only represents $1 so anyone rates higher than him… except maybe 1¢.
Tests assume that everyone adheres to the norm. they don’t.
I’ve taken numerous tests for various reasons, but never as a hiring filter. Usually, they were part of assorted seminars and courses. The saddest tests are the ones where they ask the same question several times, buried in the noise of other questions - but are not sufficiently subtle about it, so when you hit the third version of the same question you get their drift.
(The one thing I recall as a general detriment to hiring for more technical positions - was discriminating about “job-hoppers”. If this person never usually stayed in a job more than 2 years, why would we hire them? Why did they keep leaving?)
I don’t see such tests as purposeful or meaningful. I suspect that HR, like many other management departments, attend a seminar where they are sold on this new test as the solution to their problem of the day. Then the boss says “we’re going to use this”, the rest of HR skims the material on how to use it, probably misinterprets the intent and results of the test, but continues to use it until someone many years alter says “why are we paying those Bozos so much every year when the test really doesn’t have any improvement in our hiring?” Which of course assumes they did any statistics on hiring results - more likely it comes into question after one or two spectacular failures.
My wife, when applying for management trainee at her company, had to take an “aptitude test” which appeared to be a non-glorified intelligence test. With the warning, we searched for a few practice questions online. I suspect that the typical applicant, a non-technical worker out of school for 10 years or so, may take a while to get the hang of the questions - the typical were like a bisected circle in a square some solid, some outline, “what is the next in sequence?” Just getting the hang of that; or a sequence of numbers, how do you determine next number? A little practice gave her much more confidence and understanding, which probably improved her score a decent amount compared to someone who went in cold. Of course, she could do math too.
Number Six was placed in a situation without his consent where he didn’t know his location, didn’t know who was in charge, and didn’t know why he had been brought to the island. That’s a markedly different situation from attendees who consented to be there, know who is in charge, and why they’re all there.
I’m frequently amazed by the number of people who believe HR is making the hiring decisions. In most companies it’s the manager of the area hiring that makes the final decision.
That’s only one of our functions and it’s one I’m not particularly embarrassed to admit. Though I personally hate performing useless bullshit.
That sounds like the Birkman and I had to take it a few years back. Though it seemed accurate in my case, I expressed my skepticism regarding the results. Even a horoscope can seem accurate. The only thing we use the Birkman for is to facilitate communication and cooperation between managers and their subordinates. It’s too expensive to use as a screening tool.
I’m pretty sure that some of those personality tests I took years ago were written by the local Scientology branch. At the time, they were branding themselves as a “psychological testing service” in my country, and they would sell these stupid exams to recruitment agencies for a quick shekel.
Of course, as a physics major, I’d probably put colours in spectrum order. 
That’s the usual approach, but in several companies I’ve worked for, the HR department does the initial winnowing of the candidates to a short-ish list for the manager to pare down further for interviewing.
At any rate, it seems like most people get really fixated on someone’s experience and skill, and don’t really worry about how they are behavior wise, how they learn from their mistakes, etc… which I think are more important over the long haul than whether or not they have Python 3.9 or 3.0 experience in their resume.
Of course HR does the initial winnowing. Most hiring managers don’t want to take the time to screen dozens and dozens of applicants because they’re busy managing their line of business. I do have one hiring manager in my IT/IS area that doesn’t like to interview anyone. He pretty much makes his decision entirely based on what’s on the resume.
I’m in agreement here but I don’t think you learn a whole lot about a candidate’s behavior until you interview them.
That isn’t surprising. In the days following 9/11, the Scientologist got some backlash for setting up hotlines disguised as organizations dedicated to helping people cope with mental stress.