Shonky psychometric tests kill potential careers

There are myriad problems with the aptitude and reasoning tests but one of the most serious is the tenuous link between the test and the competency being assessed. It's like going to a supermarket and asking for a specific aptitude test in 'clerical administration' and being given the 'one size fits all' supervisors test. You'll get some sort of test result but it won't measure what you want.

In many cases, the tests are marked by the recruiters themselves, who have little or no training in the assessment of psychological tests. It's like sitting a university exam and having the administration officer grade your paper, rather than a professor. God help you if you want a copy of the test. You won't get it because they are copyright. Transparent and accountable? You've got to be kidding.

If you were raised in another culture where English wasn't the primary language, you're under the gun. 95 per cent of all psychometric tests are created and tested on Anglo-Saxon people. So the tests drip with specific cultural assumptions.

It's true that some psychometric tests are the products of repeated samples overseas in places like Minnesota and Baltimore. But of course, the normative and cultural assumptions of work are different in Australia. But still, they use them here.

According to The Guardian (30 April 2013) in the UK, jobseekers were being made to complete bogus psychometric tests by the Department for Work and Pensions. They were told they risk losing their benefitsif they do not complete the meaningless online questionnaire. The test called My Strengths, devised by Downing Street's behavioural insightsor "nudge"unit, has been exposed as a sham with results having no relation to the answers given.

Some of the 48 statements on the DWP test include: "I never go out of my way to visit museums," and: "I have not created anything of beauty in the last year." People are asked to grade their answers from "very much like me" to "very much unlike me".

When those being tested complete the official online questionnaire, they were assigned a set of five positive "strengths" including "love of learning" and "curiosity" and "originality".

However, those taking the 'psychological survey' have found that by clicking on the same answer repeatedly, users will get the same set of personality results as those entering a completely opposite set of answers. It's hard enough getting a job in Australia or the UK without this sort of coercive bollocks.

Psychometric tests homogenise a business' workforce. HR people insist on 'cultural fit' – whatever that is – because they want people who will stick to the company line. They don't want employees asking awkward questions such as, what's the efficacy of using personality profiles and psychometric tests in recruitment? Organisations that use these tests are bland and lack innovation.

Lets cut to the chase. These tests are about big money. They play on employer's fears that they need to get right person for the job. Here's a heads up. There is no right person and the only way employers can tell is by interviewing them, checking references and giving the successful candidate a probation period. All the HR jargon about 'right fit' is anti-empirical rubbish.

Consider this, if psychometric tests were 'kosher' then why would organisations such as the Institute of Psychometric Coaching in Australia, offer applicants coaching to improve their aptitude, personality and psychometric test results?

For a fee, the Institute will tell you how to prepare for a personality test, diagrammatic reasoning tests, numerical reasoning tests, inductive reasoning tests and more. The Institute also has the tacit support of Ericsson, Rio Tinto, Telstra, Ernst & Young and NAB. One hour's personal coaching by an organizational psychologist will set you back $489.90.