Psychometric Assessments: Can They Really Predict Job Performance?
YES, BUT ONLY IF THE METHOD IS VALID
There are many types of psychometric assessments, and there are often so many factors to consider when selecting suitable recruitment selection methods: candidate care, efficiency, cost, and so on – that it’s sometimes easy to lose sight of the most important factor: which assessment methods are the most predictive of job performance – and therefore the most valid?
’VALIDITY’ REFERS TO THE ABILITY OF A TEST TO MEASURE WHAT IT CLAIMS TO MEASURE
We know that unstructured interviews and previous work experience are some of the least predictive measures of on-the-job performance. But which methods are most effective at predicting job performance? It can be helpful to go back to basics by considering how different psychometric assessments stack up against each other.
When we talk about validity statistics, a coefficient of ‘1’ would indicate a perfect correlation between the assessment method and on-the-job performance. In other words, the assessment results could predict specific workplace outcomes perfectly 100% of the time.
Clearly, this isn’t possible because humans are marvelously complex, and there are SO many factors affecting an individual’s performance in the workplace! So in terms of assessment: a method with a validity coefficient of 0.30 – or above – is likely to be very useful; 0.50 is considered excellent.
THE VALIDITY LADDER
The validity ‘ladder’ is a timely reminder of the importance of ensuring that you select valid assessment tools that will help you make the most effective recruitment decisions possible. The higher the statistic (on the ladder), the more valid that assessment method is, and as you can see, psychometric assessments really are much greater at predicting on the job performance.
If you would like to talk to us about how you can improve the validity of your current recruitment process? Get in touch with our team today.
