I am greatly disturbed by the trend that employers are now following: that of using 'pop' psychological profiling to discriminate between candidates.

I vehemently disagree that my abilities; my true character; my personality if you will can be augered by 20 tick-questions about how I may react in hypothetical situations.

I am of the firm opinion that they are totally useless in helping to define my or anyone's fitness for a role - whether that role be one of limited responsibility or not.

Anyone agree or disagree?

Psychological questions are done and made by psychologist.The accuracy of the questions to determine your character is also determined by how professional the psychologist who made the questions. However, a professional psychologist may not be able to know each and everyone's character by just using the questionaire they wrote.

For example, a person who answered 'A' will have this kind of character. But it is not for all people who answered 'A' to have the character too. Though maybe there are more people who answered 'A' to have it, but not all.

I won't actually disagree with they employers using questionaire to determine the candidates' character. But you can try to explain to them about the uncertainties in the questionaire =)

Though it has some sort of use I don't think that it should merit as a basis for employment. For one, there is no way of knowing that the answer given by a person would be what he would do when confronted by real-life situation.
We can't even be sure that they would even choose to answer them truthfully. And it is also possible that the applicant have already came across similar questions before and already have an idea of what kind of answer an employer wants to hear. Sometimes these types of questions are even discussed in pre-employment seminars & workshops in some universities.

I must agree with joeltucit on this - I can go on to the web and download 50+ books on how to 'cheat' at these tests... so, this being the case, can these profiles have any true substance?

I know that psychology is not an 'exact' science but when most of the major psychology camps disagree vehemently about the true worth, if any, of results garnered from these profile tests then I've got to say that enough is enough.

If anyone can show me concrete proof that these tests have, at their core, a foundation based upon science and not some wishful, fantastical hope that human potential can be measured in mere minutes and seconds then go ahead. I issue that challenge...

i too agree with joeltucit on this, i also think it depends a lot on the person analyzing the results. i wonder how many people answer honestly or give the answers they think are desired. i also think profile tests are bit mean and that i depends on where you are emotionally etc at the time of taking the test.

Its disturbing how people are branded these days, even to a point where you will be branded in psychology manner. But theres nothing much you can do if you like to work for that company doesn't it? Nothing much we can do about it too. The most is that you cannot get the job even though your skill is better than others but you are not psychologically fit to work for their company. Hhahaha... what crap is that.

hi every one!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi,

There are two I have done recently for work situations; the Myers Briggs Temperment, and the Belbin team roles test. I think the myers briggs is fairly accurate but easy to deceive through, the belbin is not as revealing but equally easy to deceive.

The other thing ive done recently are psychometric tests through Hodder & Stoughton to measure aptitude. I think its a good idea to test people using practical exams like that but the two personality tests are not such a good idea since you can pretend and since there is no actual evidence from scientific community that they get accurate results (particularly belbin).

When everyone feel that the Psychometric will not reveal 100% results, then why we should keep researching on it..

I am greatly disturbed by the trend that employers are now following: that of using 'pop' psychological profiling to discriminate between candidates.

I vehemently disagree that my abilities; my true character; my personality if you will can be augered by 20 tick-questions about how I may react in hypothetical situations.

I am of the firm opinion that they are totally useless in helping to define my or anyone's fitness for a role - whether that role be one of limited responsibility or not.

Anyone agree or disagree?

Psychological Profiles are mere tools. People decide whether you'll get the job or not. If there are thousands of eligible applicants then I think companies are allowed to use these tools just to narrow down the applicants. But of course the companies ran the risk of losing possible "gems" due to the lack of sensitivity/specificity of these tests.
But in general I think it would be a bad thing if you wouldn't be invited for a job application interview solely based on your profile.

I think it boils down to this. You need the job. Companies offer them and have the choice of their selection procedure. If you were perfect for the job but were declined due to a faulty profile then it is their lost.

Those sort of hypothetical questions as some employers use onto those to be interviewed are sometimes used to see how you would react to a certain scenario. It really depends on the company you are interviewing for. It is sometimes a must use tool for the employers in the field of hiring of employees. Banks - Security - Assistant Managers - All sorts of the higher white collar professions.
Can understand if they ask these sort of silly questions for someone being hired to be a cleaner.
Just my two cents worth.
Regards.

I totally agree with you all. That test cant provide best selection.