# Weird results in psychometric test screwed up my interview



## beeboo (Oct 9, 2010)

I filled in a psychometric test as part of a job interview process, and then had an interview today where they quizzed me on some of findings of the test. 

After some fairly extensive questioning, where they clearly weren’t getting the answers from me they were expecting, they told me that my psychometric test results were a bit unusual – very polarised (either v.strong or v.weak performance) and overall very self-critical.  

On the whole the interview went pretty well, a few hiccups but I think they liked me.  But I’m worried about the psychometric test business.

In the interview they seemed quite willing to dismiss the test – they asked how I’d filled it in and I said I’d been deliberately trying to use the extreme ends of the scale (it was in the instructions!) and there was a sense of ‘ah that explains it’ , plus they quizzed me on the self-criticism thing and I think I successfully managed to spin it into a positive ‘challenging myself/self-improvement’ thing rather than just being down on myself (when I was filling in the test I was deliberately trying NOT to be too positive as I thought this would be a bad thing!!)

But I’m a bit worried that they’ll still have some lingering doubts about me based on the test results.

So I’m wondering:

-what are my rights to get access to the test results?  Apparently there is a candidate version of the results which I’d asked for in advance of the interview but I was told we would be given it after a decision had been made.  Are they allowed to withhold personal info they hold on me during the recruitment process? 

-would it be acceptable to submit some comments in writing about my response to the test (regardless whether I get to see the test results or not).  I’d just want to reiterate my comments from the interview that I think I was a bit overzealous in my approach to completing the test and that I don’t think the results reflect me.

Or do you think I should just let it lie?   I really want the job and I'd massively annoyed if the stupid psychometric test screws it up.


----------



## miss minnie (Oct 9, 2010)

Any company that uses psychometric tests during recruitment is not worth working for.

I did one once, sat in a room with another candidate who announced that it was a waste of time and proceeded to randomly click buttons, finishing the test in a few minutes and walking out.  The company decided to hire us both.    The job turned out to be a nightmare.  

Run.  Run away.  Fast.


----------



## ymu (Oct 9, 2010)

I'd let it lie. You seem to have convinced them there's nothing to worry about - don't go making it look like there is by getting all stressy about it!

If you don't get the job, go to war. Until then, sit tight.


----------



## porno thieving gypsy (Oct 9, 2010)

You have a legal right to have the results explained to you.

Psychometric tests are not likely to make or break your application, the interview and your CV will have far greater weighting.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 9, 2010)

Psychometric tests are like horoscopes or tarot cards. It is just a bit of mysticism that businesses buy into because they have no confidence in their own interview or recruiting skills. They are frightened of hiring a bad-un. I think there was a fashion in America for a while to ask for a piece of hand written text, which they would they have analysed by a so called 'expert'. Most of this garbage comes from America.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 9, 2010)

I failed a psychometric test for a part-time job at B&Q that would fit in with YoungPlanet's schooling, around 7 years ago.
I was overjoyed 


And I agree with Hocus Eye - they're business mysticism that evolved from the 1980s onwards and were transported to the UK by global neoliberal consultancy firms like the infamous Arthur Andersen. I'd be VERY interested to see whether they've achieved the results they claim they can achieve (i.e. weeding out the bad 'uns from the good 'uns). They might be weeding out the ingenious workers and achieving a monoculture of unimaginative drones in the workplace for all we know. 

Good references, CV and several interviews should be all that is required.  
I'm curious to know how much they cost, if anything. Does anyone in HR know?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 9, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Psychometric tests are like horoscopes or tarot cards. It is just a bit of mysticism that businesses buy into because they have no confidence in their own interview or recruiting skills. They are frightened of hiring a bad-un. I think there was a fashion in America for a while to ask for a piece of hand written text, which they would they have analysed by a so called 'expert'. Most of this garbage comes from America.


 I don't know about these corporate ones that companies use, but psychometric tests in general, despite their limits, are a lot more rigerous and scientifically driven than horoscopes etc. Horoscopes don't use factor analysis in their development for example, and aren't tested for reliability or validity. That's what they should go through though-I'm happy to admit there might be some poorly developed ones out there. I also reckon I could easily fake a personality test now after scoring a few. And of course, a psychometric test should never be the primary source of evidence to be drawn on, or at least not in these sorts of situations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> Any company that uses psychometric tests during recruitment is not worth working for.


I totally agree.
Psychometrics may be a great way to "grade" individuals into very broad character groups, but as a tool for assessing the details of a person's personality traits with regard to how they'll do a particular job - absolute pants. You might just as well employ a "drawing pin and blindfold" approach to choosing workers.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 9, 2010)

I agree that with people questionning their use in job interview situations. I really don't see the point. The personality tests I know best and which have the most statistical support are concerned with pathology rather than a more subtle personality profile anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2010)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I don't know about these corporate ones that companies use, but psychometric tests in general, despite their limits, are a lot more rigerous and scientifically driven than horoscopes etc.


I suspect, though, that as an academic you're talking about psychometric tests administered in properly controlled situations and with a particular narrowly-defined application in mind. I don't have a problem with *them*.


----------



## miss minnie (Oct 9, 2010)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I don't know about these corporate ones that companies use, but psychometric tests in general, despite their limits, are a lot more rigerous and scientifically driven than horoscopes etc.


They may have been devised that way and in clinical settings they may be executed scientifically but the regular HR drone charged with implementing the test, interpreting and acting on results is not a scientist.  He or she may as well be reading a horoscope.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2010)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I agree that with people questionning their use in job interview situations. I really don't see the point. The personality tests I know best and which have the most statistical support are concerned with pathology rather than a more subtle personality profile anyway.


 
There's been a push in the last decade or so to deploy modern psychometrics more often in  criminal psychology on that basis, and I don't disagree. When you're looking at/for psycho-pathologies and/or the nuances of a particular type of "deviance", they're an appropriate tool.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 9, 2010)

Yeah, I am talking about the clinical ones. Tbh I don't really know much about the corporate ones but I don't really see how they can be much good. Given that I've been ploughing through various papers doing all sorts of statistical number crunching on clinical psychology measures recently, I just objected to the broad brush!


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 9, 2010)

If I could get my hands on one, I'd be quite interested to see whether I could actually produce quite different personality profiles intentionally...


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's been a push in the last decade or so to deploy modern psychometrics more often in  criminal psychology on that basis, and I don't disagree. When you're looking at/for psycho-pathologies and/or the nuances of a particular type of "deviance", they're an appropriate tool.


 
And even those can be subject to quite heavy (and often fair) criticism. Norms not being based on a representative enough sample for example.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2010)

It's not just that the tests themselves are dubious, but are people able to interpret them properly? Do employers understand what kind of personality they want and why? If they are after 'people like them', they are denying themselves diversity. 

TBH, anyone who trusts such abstract, crude testing over their own judgement at a face-to-face interview is a fool. Far harder to fake it face-to-face than when putting a series of crosses in boxes to answer questions that are so general as to be unanswerable in most cases.

I bet I could fake these tests. Gimme a personality and I'll impersonate it. Just takes a bit of an imagination.


----------



## miss minnie (Oct 9, 2010)

Random answers can produce a satisfactory profile apparently.  Imo that makes the use of the tests in a commercial context worthless.  A hand of poker would be just as meaningful as a deciding factor.


----------



## miss minnie (Oct 9, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not just that the tests themselves are dubious, but are people able to interpret them properly? Do employers understand what kind of personality they want and why? If they are after 'people like them', they are denying themselves diversity.


Ooh, never employ mavericks... they might actually DO something!


----------



## Limejuice (Oct 9, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I think there was a fashion in America for a while to ask for a piece of hand written text, which they would they have analysed by a so called 'expert'. Most of this garbage comes from America.


 
None of the American companies I've worked for went in for graphology. French, yes. It's still common today in France to be asked to submit a CV with a covering letter _manuscrite_, for the purpose of handwriting analysis. Bonkers, but there you go.


----------



## beeboo (Oct 9, 2010)

OK, so it looks like we've mostly agreed pyschometric tests are a bit rubbish, but what should I DO about this situation. 

We've got one vote for 'let it lie' from ymu, and a vote or two for 'anyone who takes these tests seriously you don't want to be working for anyway'.  Anyone else got an opinion?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 9, 2010)

I think ymu has it right. If you write to them about it, they will rightly assume that you have been phased by the test and this would likely go against you. Who wants to employ someone who is easily discomfited by the unexpected? If you leave it alone then being a bit unusual in your responses to the test may make you memorable to the interview panel when they get together to make their final decision. This could be a positive thing and would be better than being forgotten among the other candidates.

If you don't get the job it could be on some other arbitrary criterion that you don't know about.


----------



## miss minnie (Oct 9, 2010)

beeboo said:


> OK, so it looks like we've mostly agreed pyschometric tests are a bit rubbish, but what should I DO about this situation.
> 
> We've got one vote for 'let it lie' from ymu, and a vote or two for 'anyone who takes these tests seriously you don't want to be working for anyway'.  Anyone else got an opinion?


99% sure that they will be the sort of people working for the sort of company where rocking the boat is simply not the done thing.  Up to you if you want to take the risk.

Take a long look at your reaction to the interview process.  Do you think that working for them is going to be fun?  They already have you on your left foot and they're not even paying you yet.


----------



## beeboo (Oct 9, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> 99% sure that they will be the sort of people working for the sort of company where rocking the boat is simply not the done thing.  Up to you if you want to take the risk.
> .


 
Thing is one of the things they were picking up as a negative on the test was I think related to having enough confidence to do the job - there were questions along the line of "would you feel comfortable walking into this office and telling me I'm making the wrong decision?"  The role would be leading a team who've been a bit overlooked and don't have enough influence in the organisation so I think they're looking for someone who is prepared to a be a bit challenging.

Part of me thinks it would be a good idea to talk their HR department into giving me a copy of the test results, then just giving Mr "would you walk into my office...?" a ring and telling him the results are bullshit.


----------



## beeboo (Oct 9, 2010)

miss minnie said:


> 99% sure that they will be the sort of people working for the sort of company where rocking the boat is simply not the done thing.  Up to you if you want to take the risk.
> .


 
Thing is one of the things they were picking up as a negative on the test was I think related to having enough confidence to do the job - there were questions along the line of "would you feel comfortable walking into this office and telling me I'm making the wrong decision?"  The role would be leading a team who've been a bit overlooked and don't have enough influence in the organisation so I think they're looking for someone who is prepared to a be a bit challenging.

Part of me thinks it would be a good idea to talk their HR department into giving me a copy of the test results, then just giving Mr "would you walk into my office...?" a ring and telling him the results are bullshit.


----------



## ymu (Oct 9, 2010)

Stop obsessing!

You've already talked to them about the test results. You've cleared up their confusion as to why it didn't tell them you were the perfect candidate that they already knew you were. Seriously, bite your knuckles and DO NOT go contacting them to try and explain why you gave weird answers. Think Larry David - it's done, it can't be undone, leave it be.


----------



## beeboo (Oct 10, 2010)

Yeah I think I'm over it now - it's frustrating as I think it's still quite likely to count against me in some way, but que sera sera and all that.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 10, 2010)

Let it lie!

Have the confidence to just say, "I gave my answers and told you about myself, you now have your chance to hire me". Don't make interventions now.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 10, 2010)

So, you're a replicant?


----------



## Cloo (Oct 10, 2010)

Let me tell you about my mother...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 11, 2010)

Never had one of them thingies before.  It's more along the lines of "not very bright, but can lift heavy weights."


----------

