personality psychometric testing

Student ID: 08006321 of 16 C. Shaw

Staffordshire University

Business School

Module Code: BSB10183-3

Assessment Type: Progress Report

Assessment Title: Project

Module Leader: Gerard Ryan

Assessment Tutor: Christine Shaw

Campus: Stoke

Semester: Semester 2

Year: 2010-2011

Student Id: 08006321

Hand in date: 4th May 2011

Word count: 2000 words (+/- 10%)

Actual words used: 2199


Contents

1. Introduction...................................................................................... p. 3

2. Literature Review............................................................................ p. 4 - 9

3. Conclusion....................................................................................... p. 9 - 10

4. References...................................................................................... p. 11 - 14

5. Appendix......................................................................................... p. 15 - 16


“Personality Psychometric Testing (PPT) as a part of Business Recruitment:

Does it improve the chances of employing the best people for the job?”

Introduction

As the choice of candidate increases, more companies are looking to use

psychometrics within selection processes, to find the most suitable. This paper aims

to review literature surrounding Psychometrics, focusing on the „Personality Testing‟

aspect, with the objective of assessing whether it suggests, use in modern day

recruitment increases chances of employing the „best people for the job ‟, A notion

deemed by Oliviera (2009) as; “something of a paradox”.

Research questions/objectives include;

What are the main arguments which support/refute the notion of Personality

Psychometric Testing (PPT) improving chances of employing the best people

for the job?

Explore validity of personality tests using an example, the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator.

Are there any key ethical issues associated with the use of psychometrics?

This topic was chosen due to personal interest in the use of psychology in business

selection following personal experiences. The review may be of interest to any

managers/interviewers or employees involved in „Human Resources‟ or

„Organisational Behaviour‟ of a business due to cost and also its effects on

potentially, the workforce morale.

The literature review will contribute evidence for each of the research questions

listed above. The main body of the text will begin by reviewing the main topics and

arguments surrounding the use of „Personality Psychometric Testing‟ and will filter

down to the particular validity of such tests, using sustained arguments throughout,

from which a conclusion can be drawn.


Literature Review

Many companies, such as Marks

and Spencer‟s use Psychometric

testing as a part of their selection

process. In 2005, according to the

Times Top 100 list, as cited by

Parkinson (2005) and shown in

the graph opposite;

“Over 70% of companies use tests of this nature”.

Psychometrics consists of two aspects; ability and personality testing. Personality

tests, “aim to gauge the innate traits and characteristics of people, codify them and

compare them with others” (Roberts (1997).

Literature surrounding these tests is mainly based around issues such as “the extent

to which personality is measureable” or “the extent to which specific characteristics

can be identified as being necessary or desirable for a particular job” (Beardwell et al

(2004)). The latter of these could be viewed as more important as it is therefore

down to perception of what qualities are good/more desirable.

The first point to be made are the arguments for using Psychometrics as a part of the

selection process, what these tests show in relation to what interviewers want to find

out.

After undertaking research, Branine (2008) discovered that over 66% of respondents

said they used personality tests because they “allow for individual differences to be

explored in applicants”. This suggests that employers have a predetermined list of

traits which show them that the interviewee will be successful/unsuccessful in the

desired role.


Sackett and Lievens (2008) agree, claiming;

“Many employers look for applicants who are motivated, flexible, pragmatic,

dynamic, responsible, intellectually aggressive and able to work both

independently and in a team”

Material suggests that the use of psychometric tests yields knowledge of perceived

importance to interviewers. This suggestion is supported by Jenkins (2001) who,

after carrying out personal research, came to the conclusion that;

“Psychometric tests are able to make valid predictions about job performance,

across a broad range of different jobs”.

The main argument within this topic, as highlighted in the work of Furr and Funder

(2007), centres on the concept of validity where, they describe it as a „psychometric

concern‟. Other academics agree with this idea that information gained from „PPT‟ is

erroneous due to lack of reliability.

Newell (2006) believes that the decision to choose a candidate based upon results of

these tests can be, in itself, „wrong‟. This feeling may be based on the results of

earlier work by people such as Barclay (1999) who, considers statements like

„Personality being a stable concept‟ and „there are certain personality characteristics

suited to certain jobs‟, nothing more than “questionable assumptions”. Some authors

such as Laming (1997) actively challenge these assumptions arguing that;

“Personality and intelligence are not normally distributed and such an

assertion is a deceitful product of factor analysis”

Within the testing itself, some academics looked to prove the unreliability of the

results gained. Searle (2003) in particular discovered that some participants in tests

gave false answers due to either misinterpretation of the question or general

confusion. It was stated that;

“While a response was provided it did not reflect what they say in an

interview”.


This statement highlights a massive flaw in the testing situation in which an employer

may select a candidate to interview, based on test results only for the interview to

potentially reveal undesired traits. If the test is carried out after the interview and the

candidate is selected for employment based on these results this would essentially

mean that a potentially better employee was discarded due to this selection process.

Moore (2006) appears to share this damning belief by summarising;

“A shared conclusion in the relevant literature is that selection methodology is

unreliable most of the time”

The wording of this statement leaves room for additional research. Moore appears to

suggest that it is not unreliable „all‟ of the time meaning that in some circumstances,

„PPT‟ does, accurately show interviewers the candidate‟s traits.

Due to this high importance, Smith et al (1989) constructed a graph, [Appendix 1],

based on the results of a series of meta-analysis, which ranks the methods in order

of which produces the most accurate prediction of performance. Interestingly, on this

graph, Ability tests are more accurate by approximately 10% than Personality tests

however neither is particularly close to a „perfect prediction‟.

Work earlier carried out by Barrick et al (2001), also revealed a belief that;

“There is no doubt that good psychometric tests are the most effective method

of assessing factors such as personality and intelligence.”

It is important to note a subtle difference in the earlier work where they bring in the

notion of ‘good’ psychometric tests which may be key to providing accurate and

reliable results. In this sense, the literature thus far, appears to suggest that a test

determined to be good, which will yield accurate answers, would be one without

nonsensical questions.

At this stage, the Aston Centre for Human Resources (2008) offers an excellent

summary based on what has been discussed thus far;

“Psychometric testing can be reliable and potentially valid for many roles, but

may only be valid for a restricted range of criterion measures and the overall


utility of such test may be undermined by the adverse reaction of the

candidates. “

Offering a different alternative, some businesses may use these simply because they

are used to them. Literature suggests these tests potentially save time for

interviewers as the candidate can answer multiple questions on the personality test

which may crop up during the interview stage thus achieving two things with one

action. (Anderson and Witvliet (2008))

This preference is regardless of their reliability or validity, based on familiarity with

the system. McHenry (2001) points out a possible negative impact of this, implying

that organisations may „use and abuse these tests in equal measure‟ as they

become a commodity item available cheaply over the internet.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - [Appendix 2]

From the literature, one of the more popular personality tests is the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator or „MBTI‟ for short. The test is based on the theories of Carl Jung

(1927) and takes approximately twenty minutes to complete. It asks a list of

questions, from which each answer directly relates to one of four possible personality

traits as shown in [Appendix 2].

The instrument dates back approximately thirty years and, according to Cammileri

(2002);

“Its extensive use in industry and various documented studies have shown it

to be valid and reliable”.

With regards to validity, designer, Isabel Briggs Myers (1985) stated that the MBTI

can only be accurate provided the candidate being tested is “honest when self-

reporting”. The 2009 MBTI Manual also claims validity suggesting;

“An instrument is said to be valid when it measures what it has been

designed to measure” (Schaubhut Et al (2009)).

Although the majority of the literature does not seek to contradict such claims, it does

strongly believe that it should not be used where recruitment or selection is involved.


In a review in 1996, a committee decided that at that moment in time the existing

research did not “justify the use of the MBTI in career counselling programs”

(Nowack (1996)).

Possibly the most crucial and interesting part to this entire debate is summed up the

words of the creators of the MBTI who stress in their guidelines that the MBTI does

not “imply excellence, competence, or natural ability, only what is preferred”. In other

words their tool does not show or „Perfectly predict‟ whether a candidate will be good

at or excel in specific areas, it shows nothing but their own preferences.

Further in the guidelines is a statement which brings in an entirely new angle to this

debate, whether these personality tests are „ethical‟. Specifically the creators state

that;

“It is unethical and in many cases illegal to require job applicants to take

the Indicator if the results will be used to screen out applicants”.

(Myers-Briggs Foundation, Ethical Use Policy)

This leads on to the final research question, where, the literature available suggests

there are a number of underlying ethical issues which, although the BPS exists to

filter out, may survive.

The first example of this appears in the work of Anthony et al (1996) where they

state;

“It is generally agreed that an organisation has the right to know whether an

applicant for a sales position is introverted or extroverted”

Whether or not an organisation has the „right to know‟ personal details like these

could be something of a contentious area. On one hand, for some jobs and roles, i.e.

the example given in this statement, knowing this information is necessary however

this statement suggests that management have a „right to demand‟ this information

regardless of the situation which may be unlawful in the eyes of the British

Psychological Society, (BPS).


Searle (2003) offers another opinion, declaring Psychometric tests will forever be

open to abuse as they „offer a potential means of legitimizing discrimination by those

in power and authority‟. This belief faces strong disagreement by Hogan et al (1996),

in work carried out 7 years earlier, who states;

“...we want to suggest in the strongest possible terms that the use of well-

constructed personality testing in pre-employment screening will be a force for

equal employment opportunity, social justice, and increased productivity.”

The notion of the tests being „well constructed‟ incorporates correct moderation and

simple questions meaning that candidates face no confusion during the testing

phase. For psychologists, the „BPS‟ has extremely strict views on what is fair,

ethically and morally right for example rule 2.1i states that;

“Psychologists should develop and maintain a comprehensive awareness of

professional ethics, including familiarity with this Code and Recognise that

ethical dilemmas will inevitably arise in the course of professional practice.”

(British Psychological Society (2009))

Conclusion

To summarise the main arguments, „PPT‟ can be reliable and valid if deployed

correctly. Questions must be user-friendly allowing no scope for

confusion/misinterpretation and administered without bias. This should ensure the

test‟s reliability and from an ethical standpoint, the test should not be used as a sole

selection process. This is in order to ensure equal opportunities, supported by the

„BPS‟.

Within this paper, literature surrounding Personality Testing has been reviewed and

an assessment of its effect of employing the „best people for the job‟ has been

constructed, thus fulfilling the aim and objectives. Research questions/further

objectives have also been met as main arguments have been identified along with

any key ethical issues, using an example test to further demonstrate key ideas, in

this case from the creators themselves.


The main issue writing this report was the amount of irrelevant subject material. I

found that many of the papers were written by concept advocates and only gave one

sided, biased views. The data that was kept was, where possible, contemporary and

from a neutral source. I feel that by doing this, the integrity of the review was kept

enabling for a strictly non-biased conclusion to be formed.

If I were to continue this, I would expand the analysis into different models such as

the „Big 5 Factor Model‟ as I was unable to do it within this review due to word

limitation.

Overall I am satisfied with the review and its findings, answering the question

proposed at the beginning. One recommendation I would make, given the

opportunity, would be to subject a successful business man/women, for example Sir

Richard Branson, to a multitude of the „PPT‟s and have a psychologist analyse the

results to see if he/she possesses perceived qualities desired by interviewers as

defined above. This would effectively prove/disprove the validity argument in

particular.

In conclusion, „PPT‟ will only ever improve the chances of employing the best people

for the job IF used in conjunction with other selection methods. On its own it is

viewed as being ethically wrong and more often than not will yield invalid results due

to candidates undermining the test by providing answers they believe employers will

want to read as opposed to their own personal preference.

Word Count 2,199


References

Anderson, N. and Witvliet, C. (2008). “Fairness reactions to personnel selection

methods: an international comparison between The Netherlands, the United States,

France, Spain, Portugal, and Singapore”. International Journal of Selection and

Assessment. Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-13.

Anthony, W., Perrewe, P. & Kacmar, K. (1996). Strategic Human Resource

Management. 2nd edition. United States of America: The Dryden Press

Barclay, J. (1999). Improving selection interviews with structure: organisations' use

of "behavioural" interviews. Personnel Review. 30(1). p. 97

Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., Judge, T.A. (2001). "Personality and performance at the

beginning of the new millennium: what do we know and where do we go next?" The

International Journal of Selection and Assessment. Vol. 9 No.1/2, pp.9-30

Beardwell, I., Holden, L. & Claydon, T. (2004). Human Resource Management: A

Contemporary Approach. 4th edition. Great Britain: Pearson Education Ltd. p.213

Branine, M. (2008). Graduate recruitment and selection in the UK: A study of the

recent changes in methods and expectations. Career Development International.

13(6). p.510

British Psychological Society (2009) Ethical Code of Conduct [Online]. Available

from: http://www.bps.org.uk/document-download-area/document-

download$.cfm?file_uuid=E6917759-9799-434A-F313-9C35698E1864&ext=pdf

[Accessed: 20 April 2011]

http://www.bps.org.uk/document-download-area/document-download$.cfm?file_uuid=E6917759-9799-434A-F313-9C35698E1864&ext=pdf

http://www.bps.org.uk/document-download-area/document-download$.cfm?file_uuid=E6917759-9799-434A-F313-9C35698E1864&ext=pdf


Camilleri, E. (2002). Some atecedents of organisational commitment: results from an

information systems public sector organisation. Bank of Valletta Review. 25(Spring).

p.13

Furr, R.M. and Funder, D.C. (2007). “Behavioral observation”, in Robins, R.W.,

Fraley, R.C. and Krueger, R.F. (Eds), Handbook of Research Methods in Personality

Psychology. Guilford Press. New York, NY.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B. (1996). Personality measurement and

employment decisions. American Psychologist. Vol 51. pp. 469-477

Jenkins, A. (2001). Companies‟ Use of Psychometric Testing and the Changing

Demand for Skills: A Review of the Literature. London: Centre for the Economics of

Education. p.31

Laming (1997). Cited in. Searle, R. (2003). Selection & Recruitment: a critical text.

United Kingdom, The Open University: Palgrave Macmillan. pp.2-270

McHenry, R. (2001). "Frames of mind: online psychometrics (panel debate)". People

Management. No.14 June, pp.31

Mick, M. (2010). Et Tu, Brute? Raising Awareness of the Impact of End-user

Personality Types on System Development Success. Proceedings of the Academy

for Studies in Business. 2(1). p. 22

Moore, F. (2006). “Recruitment and selection of international managers”, in Edwards,

T. And Rees, C. (Eds), International Human Resources Management: Globalization,

National Systems and Multinational Companies, Prentice-Hall Financial Times,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 195-215.


Myers, I. and McCaulley, M. (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use

of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.2nd ed. Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press. pp.52-53

Myers-Briggs Foundation (2010). Ethics for Administering [Online]. Available from:

http://www.myersbriggs.org/myers-and-briggs-foundation/ethical-use-of-the-mbti-

instrument/ethics-for-administering.asp [Accessed: 20 April 2011]

Newell, S. (2006). “Selection and assessment”, in Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A,

Contemporary Human Resource Management, Financial Times Prentice-Hall,

Harlow.

Nowack, K. (1996). Is the Myers Briggs Type Indicator the Right Tool to Use?

Performance in Practice. American Society of Training and Development. Autumn

(6).

Oliveira, E. & Proenca, M. (2009). From normative to tacit knowledge: CVs analysis

in personnel selection. Employee Relations. 31(4). pp.427-447

Parkinson, M. (2005). How to master psychometric tests. 4th Edition. London:

Koogan-Page

Roberts, G. (1997). Recruitment and Selection: A competency approach. Great

Britain: Cromwell Press. pp. 13 & 164 – 167

Sackett, P.R. and Lievens, F. (2008). “Personnel selection”. Annual Review of

Psychology. Vol. 59, pp. 419-50.

http://www.myersbriggs.org/myers-and-briggs-foundation/ethical-use-of-the-mbti-instrument/ethics-for-administering.asp

http://www.myersbriggs.org/myers-and-briggs-foundation/ethical-use-of-the-mbti-instrument/ethics-for-administering.asp

http://www.opd.net/abstracts5.html

http://www.opd.net/abstracts5.html


Schaubhut, N., Herk, N. and Thompson, R. (2009). "MBTI Form M Manual

Supplement". Consulting Psychologists Press. pp. 17

Searle, R. (2003). Selection & Recruitment: a critical text. United Kingdom, The

Open University: Palgrave Macmillan. pp.2-270

Smith, M., Gregg, M. And Andrews, D. (1989). Selection and Assessment: a new

appraisal. London:Pitman. Cited in Searle, R. (2003). Selection & Recruitment: a

critical text. United Kingdom, The Open University: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 255

The Aston Centre for Human Resources. (2008). Strategic Human Resource

Management: Building research-based practice. London: Chartered Institute of

Personnel Development. p.110.


Appendix 1 - Accuracy of Some Methods of Selection

Smith, M., Gregg, M. And Andrews, D. (1989). Selection and Assessment: a new appraisal.

London:Pitman. Cited in Searle, R. (2003). Selection & Recruitment: a critical text. United Kingdom,

The Open University: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 255

The graph above represents the results of a meta-analysis of different selection

methods in regards to their ability to predict the relative performance of an

employee.

A score of 1 predicts the relative performance with perfect accuracy, a score of 0.5

yields a prediction of 50% accuracy whereas a score of 0 or lower is effectively the

equivalent of an employer picking candidates at random leaving everything to

‘chance’.


Appendix 2 - Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator

The picture on the right

displays the 16 possible

types as defined by the

MBTI above.

personality psychometric testing

Documents

use of psychometrics

student id

personality testing

shaw literature

literature review

validity of personality

use of psychology

business selection