Vijay Pandey
Psychometric Test Developer And Assessment
Pranati
Hr Manager
Rajeshgupte
Hr Manager

Cite.Co is a repository of information and resources created by industry seniors and experts sharing their real world insights. Join Network
Dear All , I wanted to know the calculation part in Psychometric testing . pl.revert back soon. regards, rajesh
From India, Thana
There is no calculation in psychometric testing - Its assessment :D .

Different tests use different criterias.

Psychometric Testing (Tool for Selection) - Pranati

Psychometrics is that part of psychology which is concerned with the measurement and interpretation of psychological variables such as aptitude for different kinds of jobs. A psychometric instrument is designed to produce a quantitative assessment of one or more psychological attributes like reasoning ability, interests, aptitude, temperament, etc.

Psychometric testing falls into three main types:

• Ability Testing

• Aptitude Testing

• Personality Testing

History

Attempts to measure differences between the psychological characteristics of individuals can be traced back to 400 BC when Hippocrates attempted to define four basic temperament types each of which could be accounted for by a predominant body fluid or humour; blood - sanguine (optimistic), black bile - melancholic (depressed), yellow bile - choleric (irritable) and phlegm - phlegmatic (listless and sluggish). Hippocrates' methods and the numerous other attempts that have been made since then were hardly scientific. The first attempt to scientifically measure the differences between individual mental abilities was made by Sir Francis Galton in the 19th Century who tried to show that the human mind could be systematically mapped into different dimensions. He studied, among other things, how people differed in terms of their ability to discriminate between stimuli and by collating the results he obtained he devised a system, which would allow an individual's abilities to be compared to those of others. From the work of people like Galton and his French contemporary, Binet, a picture of the human mental domain emerged which saw general human ability as being composed of a number of specific abilities - a view which is still held today. The basic tenet of testing nowadays is based upon the principle of measuring human mental performance under different conditions and then making comparisons between people.

Types of Tests

Tests of Attainment are used to assess knowledge and skills acquired through

education and instruction. Examples include tests of mathematics knowledge,

foreign language proficiency or mastery in a craft. Such tests tend to be narrowly

defined in content and targeted at the achievement of specific standards. Like

ability tests, such tests are generally designed so that there is only one correct

answer to each test question. The test score is usually the total number of questions

answered correctly.

Tests of Ability assess broader areas of what a person can do. While scores on such

tests are influenced by education and training, they are not designed to assess

specific areas of knowledge or skill. Examples of such tests are measures of verbal

reasoning (the ability to comprehend, interpret and draw conclusions from oral or

written language), numerical reasoning (the ability to comprehend, interpret and

draw conclusions from numerical information), spatial reasoning (the ability to

understand and interpret spatial relations between objects) and mechanical

reasoning (understanding of everyday physical laws such as force and leverage

involved in the use of tools and equipment).

Aptitude Tests which are used to assess how well an individual is likely to perform

in a training programme or in a job. Attainment tests, ability tests and personality

tests are all used to predict future performance, and so the term aptitude has more

to do with prediction than with a specific category of test.

Tests of Disposition which are used to assess how a person is likely to react

emotionally to situations and other people, the types of relationship they prefer to

establish with others, and the motivational factors that influence a person’s actions.

In contrast to attainment and ability tests, tests of disposition do not generally

contain questions to which there is only one correct answer. Rather, the answers

given to questions reflect a tendency to interpret situations or respond to other

people in particular ways. Typical qualities assessed by such tests are anxiety,

sociability, perseverance, dominance, fear of failure and resistance to stress.

Personality tests are the most widely known form of this type of test.

Tests of Interest and Preference are similar in their design to tests of disposition,

but focus on the activities, hobbies and types of work that a person might enjoy or

might be best suited for. They are frequently used in careers counseling to gauge

priorities in life (career, family, life style) and orientation towards work (service to

others, invention, entrepreneurship) in order to help focus a person’s thinking and

to suggest possibilities the person may not have considered previously.

Why use Psychometric Tests

the psychometric approach to the assessment of personality tries as far as possible to overcome the sources of error and likely misjudgement mentioned above. There are several different psychometric approaches to the measurement of personality, but they all have the following elements in common.

• They are based on scientific research (at least in so far as it is possible to be scientific in relation to human behavior)

• They used a standardized approach to obtaining the relevant information - i.e. every person who takes a particular personality questionnaire will be asked precisely the same set of questions. This differs markedly from the interview situation where each candidate may well be asked very different questions (even when the interview is a 'structured' interview). Effectively this means that the psychometric approach gives each person equal opportunity to show what they are like across the same range of behavior, attitudes and interests as everyone else taking the questionnaire.

• They use a standardized approach to judging the information provided by the candidate. Unlike in an interview where a given statement by the candidate might be judged differently by different interviewers (and even judged differently by the same interviewer on different occasions), the psychometric approach evaluates the responses of all candidates according to a fixed set of rules. For each personality questionnaire, there is a scoring key - and the same scoring key is used for each person taking the questionnaire. There can therefore be no argument, at least at this stage in the process, in interpreting particular responses the candidate may have given.

• They use a standardized and quantified approach to expressing the conclusions reached by the assessment. In the case of most psychometric tests, this is done by comparing the scores obtained by a candidate with the scores obtained by a large sample of people who have taken the test on a previous occasion. Thus, in contrast to the interviewer who might at best be able to say "I think this chap is pretty sociable and should be able to get on well with people", the psychometric questionnaire would conclude that, for example, the candidate has scored "at the 75th percentile on the scale of Sociability". What this means is that 75 percent of people in the comparison sample scored at a lower level than this (were less sociable) and only 25 percent of people scored higher (were more sociable). In this way, the psychometric approach is able to make a quantitative assessment of just how sociable the person is, when compared to other people who have taken the test in the past.

• The effectiveness of psychometric tests can be evaluated objectively. For example, studies can be conducted to see whether people vary in their responses to a questionnaire on different occasions. If it is found that their responses vary greatly from occasion to occasion, this means that the test may be unreliable and may need to be improved. Studies can also be conducted to see whether the predictions made from the a test or questionnaire are actually born out in practice. For example, the scores on a test of Sales Ability can be correlated mathematically with actual sales figures. If the people who score highly on the test do not turn out to have higher sales figures than people who score low on the test, this suggests that the test is not assessing what it is supposed to assess and should probably be abandoned

Characteristics of a Good Test

Objective

It produces unbiased results

An objective test is one which is not influenced by anyone apart from the test taker. Objectivity prevents biases from creeping into the selection process and helps ensure that everyone is fairly treated.

Standardised

the process is the same for all.

Standardisation is a critical aspect of psychometric testing. Tests and their use should be standardised in a wide variety of aspects right through from administration and the testing environment through to their interpretation.

Reliable

it has the ability to produce consistent measures

A dependable test is one that yields repeatable or consistent measurements, much in the same fashion as a set of weighing scales. Repeatability, then is one aspect of a test’s use related to reliability. However, a second aspect of the reliability of a test is accuracy - all measurements contain real measurement plus some degree of error. An instrument can measure dependably, but with the same degree of inaccuracy each time if for example the administration instructions are misleading. Together these two aspects give rise to the reliability of a test.

Test Reliability

Reliability measures to look out for include:

Internal consistency reliability - This measure examines the extent to which the individual questions or items in the test measure the same thing. This is examined by looking at the correlation between an item and all the other items in the test. The closer the correlation is to 1 the more reliable a test is said to be. Correlations below 0.7 will be unacceptable.

Test-retest reliability – Here a test is given to the same group of individuals on two separate occasion (typically with a 3 month gap in between testing sessions). The results from the two sessions are correlated with one another and a strong correlation is expected. Again, correlations below 0.7 will be unacceptable

Test Validity

The test has the ability to measure what it purports to measure.

Test validity is an essential consideration as it establishes what a test actually measures. A test is said to be valid if it measures what it claims to measure. Just how this is proved, however, is often a complex matter. Reputable test publishers will have carried out validity studies on their tests. Five principle aspects to validity can be identified when establishing the validity of the test:

Faith validity – when an individual believes passionately that a test is useful in a particular setting without regard for its psychometric properties. This type of validity has little to offer as a method for establishing the real validity of a test.

Face validity – does the test look the part and thus appear to measure what it claims it does? Although, no logical relationship between this type of validity and real validity, it’s importance should not be neglected. High face validity can aid the acceptance of a test by management and candidate’s alike, and only becomes a problem aspect to validity when a test is chosen solely via this method.

Content validity – this refers to the content of the test i.e. the questions themselves. The content validity of a test is assessed by answering the following question: ‘does the content of the test mirror the content of the job?’ the more it does the higher the content validity of the test.

Construct validity – every test sets out to measure something, a psychological concept, e.g. numerical reasoning. Construct validity refers to how successfully this construct has actually been measured. In order to establish the construct validity of a test, a number of studies are conducted, the results of which should be consistent with the definition and theory behind the test. For example, construct validity evidence might come from:

• Correlating the test with other proven tests that measure similar constructs

• Getting a group of ‘experts’ defined to have the skill and other groups defined not likely to have these skills well developed, to complete the test

Criterion related validity – tests are often used to predict behaviour in the individuals completing them, typically job performance. Whenever a test is used in this way, it is important to establish empirically whether, and to what degree, a test is actually able to predict something else. This is done by examining the relationship between a test and criterion, e.g. job performance ratings. When both test and criterion information are collected together, the study provides concurrent validity evidence. If the criterion information (job performance data) is collected later e.g. one year after the test was taken, the study is said to be a predictive validation study.

All these types of validity will be relevant to an occupational test, although concurrent and predictive validity evidence are the most important, possibly followed by content validity.

Discriminating

it measures differences between individuals

A test should be designed to discriminate between individuals on the behaviour being tested. It should also limit any potential biases that may distort the meaningfulness of test scores and should not be unfairly discriminating against minority groups on the basis of behaviour that is irrelevant to the requirements of the job

Some Commonly used Psychometric Tests in India

• MBTI: It is a forced-choice personality inventory based on C.G.Jung's theory of Psychological Types. MBTI theory is based on the fact that as individuals we have different preferences. Most people, for instance, will not use their left and right hands equally, but will have a preference to use one rather than the other. Identifies polar opposites in four areas

The ways people Naturally prefer to

By Using

Direct and get Energy Extrovert(E)/Introvert(I)

Take in Information Sensing (S)/Intuition(N)

Make Decisions Thinking(T)/Feeling(F)

Organize their External World Judging(J)/Perceiving(P)

People who complete the MBTI are given a four letter code (e.g. ISTJ; ENFP etc.) as their results which, when verified, indicates their personality preferences as one of 16 Types.

The different type preferences lead to different ways of living and working, taking in information and making decisions. They describe different, effective approaches to working and learning styles and methods, managing, leading, coaching and teaching as well as general communication, teamwork, relationships etc

16PF

The 16 PF is based on the 16 "source traits" put forth by Raymond B. Cattell in the 1940's. Cattell identified clusters of "surface traits," consistent behavioral responses, and "temperament and ability source traits," underlying variables that determine the surface traits. The chart below gives an overview of the 16 Primary Factors.

Descriptors of Low Range Primary Factor Descriptors of High Range

Reserved, impersonal, distant, cool, reserved, impersonal, detached, formal, aloof (Sizothymia) Warmth Warm, outgoing, attentive to others, kindly, easygoing, participating, likes people (Affectothymia)

Concrete-thinking, lower general mental capacity, less intelligent, unable to handle abstract problems (Lower Scholastic Mental Capacity) Reasoning Abstract-thinking, more intelligent, bright, higher general mental capacity, fast learner (Higher Scholastic Mental Capacity)

Reactive, emotionally changeable, affected by feelings, emotionally less stable, easily upset (Lower Ego Strength) Emotional Stability Emotionally stable, adaptive, mature, faces reality, calm (Higher Ego Strength)

Deferential, cooperative, avoids conflict, submissive, humble, obedient, easily led, docile, accommodating (Submissiveness) Dominance Dominant, forceful, assertive, aggressive, competitive, stubborn, bossy

(Dominance)

Serious, restrained, prudent, taciturn, introspective, silent (Desurgency) Liveliness Lively, animated, spontaneous, enthusiastic, happy-go-lucky, cheerful, expressive, impulsive (Surgency)

Expedient, nonconforming, disregards rules, self-indulgent (Low Superego Strength) Rule-Consciousness Rule-conscious, dutiful, conscientious, conforming, moralistic, staid, rule-bound (High Superego Strength)

Shy, threat-sensitive, timid, hesitant, intimidated

(Threctia) Social Boldness Socially bold, venturesome, thick-skinned, uninhibited, can take stress

(Parmia)

Utilitarian, objective, unsentimental, tough-minded, self-reliant, no-nonsense, rough (Harria) Sensitivity Sensitive, aesthetic, sentimental, tender-minded, intuitive, refined (Premsia)

Trusting, unsuspecting, accepting, unconditional, easy (Alaxia) Vigilance Vigilant, suspicious, skeptical, wary, distrustful, oppositional (Protension)

Grounded, practical, prosaic, solution-oriented, steady, conventional

(Praxernia) Abstractedness Abstracted, imaginative, absent-minded, impractical, absorbed in ideas

(Autia)

Forthright, genuine, artless, open, guileless, naive, unpretentious, involved (Artlessness) Privateness Private, discreet, non-disclosing, shrewd, polished, worldly, astute, astute, diplomatic (Shrewdness)

Self-assured, unworried, complacent, secure, free of guilt, confident, self-satisfied (Untroubled) Apprehension Apprehensive, self-doubting, worried, guilt-prone, insecure, worrying, self-blaming (Guilt Proneness)

Traditional, attached to familiar, conservative, respecting traditional ideas (Conservatism) Openness to Change Open to change, experimenting, liberal, analytical, critical, free-thinking, flexibility (Radicalism)

Group-oriented, affiliative, a joiner and follower, dependent (Group Adherence) Self-Reliance Self-reliant, solitary, resourceful, individualistic, self-sufficient (Self-Sufficiency)

Tolerates disorder, unexacting, flexible, undisciplined, lax, self-conflict, impulsive, careless of social rules, uncontrolled (Low Integration) Perfectionism Perfectionistic, organized, compulsive, self-disciplined, socially precise, exacting will power, control, self-sentimental (High Self-Concept Control)

Relaxed, placid, tranquil, torpid, patient, composed, low drive (Low Ergic Tension) Tension Tense, high energy, impatient, driven, frustrated, over-wrought, has high drive, time-driven (High Ergic Tension)

The 16 primary factors are each weighted and combined with other relevant factors into global factors. The chart below presents the global factors derived from the sixteen primary factors.

Descriptors of Low Range Global Factors Descriptors of High Range

Introverted, socially inhibited Extraversion Extraverted, social participant

Low anxiety, unperturbable, adjustment Anxiety High anxiety, perturbable, histrionic

Receptive, open-minded, intuitive, emotionality, feeling (Pathemia) Tough-Mindedness Tough-minded, resolute, unempathetic, tough poise (Cortical Alertness)

Accommodating, agreeable, selfless, subduedness Independence Independence, persuasive, willful

Unrestrained, impulsive, uncontrolled Self-Control Self-controlled, inhibitory of impulses

FIRO-B

FIRO-B stands for Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation - Behaviour. It was originally developed to identify how military personnel would work together in groups. The 54 item FIRO-B instrument was created by William Schutz and was first described in his book - FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour (1st Edition 1958) It explains how personal needs affect interpersonal relationships. It provides a useful focus for leadership development, teambuilding, mentoring programmes and organisational change.

It measures how much people may wish to offer to others, and receive back:

• Inclusion, and the desire to form new relations and associate with others.

• Control, decision-making, influence and structure, and the extent of power or dominance that a person may wish to seek or receive.

• Affection, or Openness to build emotional ties and warm connections between people, and the extent to which people may wish to offer closeness, or seek it from others.

Each item is measured in two dimensions: the expressed behaviour of that person and the behaviour they want from others. The FIRO-B instrument can provide insight into the employee's compatibility with other people, as well as their individual preferences.

Thomas PPA

OPQ

Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) is one of the world’s leading personality questionnaires and one of the first to be developed specifically for the occupational market. OPQ can be used across a range of job levels and types through the development of a number of more specific style questionnaires (WSQ, CCSQ) allowing items or statements more applicable to production or manufacturing and customer service personnel to be used. OPQ32 is the most widely used Occupational Personality Questionnaire.

OPQ32 is a personality questionnaire for use in the selection and development of people at work

TAT/Picture test

The thematic apperception test (TAT) is a projective personality test that was designed at Harvard in the 1930s by Christiana D. Morgan and Henry A. Murray. A projective test is one in which a person's patterns of thought, attitudes, observational capacity, and emotional responses are evaluated on the basis of responses to ambiguous test materials. The TAT consists of 31 pictures that depict a variety of social and interpersonal situations.The subject is asked to tell a story about each picture to the examiner. TAT can be used to reveal the underlying dynamics of the subject's personality, such as internal conflicts, dominant drives and interests, motives, etc. The specific motives that the TAT assesses include the need for achievement, need for power, the need for intimacy, and problem-solving abilities

Ink Blot test

The Rorschach inkblot test was developed by Hermann Rorschach, a Swiss psychologist, in the early twentieth century. Rorschach was a proponent of Freudian psychoanalysis, which emphasizes the role of the unconscious mind. The test has become outdated by 2004, when several Internet websites disclosed the test's secret, copyrighted inkblot set and published its entire administration protocol. Knowing these details invalidates the test.

Big 5

The Big Five was originally derived in the 1970's by two independent research teams -- Paul Costa and Robert McCrae (at the National Institutes of Health), and Warren Norman (at the University of Michigan)/Lewis Goldberg (at the University of Oregon) -- who took slightly different routes at arriving at the same results: most human personality traits can be boiled down to five broad dimensions of personality, regardless of language or culture. These five dimensions were derived by asking thousands of people hundreds of questions and then analyzing the data with a statistical procedure known as factor analysis.

Five basic dimensions of personality -- Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience

REFERENCES

Psychological testing – Users Guide by British Psychological Society

Psychometric Assessment for Selection and Development-Liam Healy & Associates

Quest Partnership-psychometric testing

Team Focus UK - What is psychometric testing.

CPP Inc.

Conn, S. R., Rieke, M. L. ( 1994) The 16PF Fifth Edition Technical Manual.

http://www.novaconnection.com/Pages/firo_b_01.htm

www.personalitypathways.com

www.shl.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorscha...t_test#History

<link no longer exists - removed> ion_test.jsp

http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/

From India, Mumbai
You can go to www.asia.centraltest.com and can have the free trail offer to know how these tests work.
Vijay

From India, Hyderabad
This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.






About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™