h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

psychological tests ::there's a good "term" psychological test also need to take into account "circumstances" concerning the induvidal takeing the test,need to be taken into account.
For instence, the test will show "predisposition" in many cases,it would be interesting to see the results of our countries leaders to some of these tests!

Too much ephasise is placed upon results of such all these companies that are recruiting by such as these could/would be classed "fitted in to group" as "paranoid" or clear case of "discrimanation" in useing "screening" to ensure they mantain controll over "employees" .

Thanks, HS. I found your message very interesting, as these things don't reach many academic psychs. People so often expect an individual to cover the lot. At introductory level, that's fair enough and I try to be helpful while warning when I'm not really the person who should be asked.

LTP. Where a test is intended to predict performance in some area, it is usually evaluated against accepted measures of actual performance by those who have taken the test. However, it is routinely found that the interview is the worst selection test of all by this criterion. That doesn't stop people conducting interviews!

toxx

So anyone watching bbc2 meet the ancestors Ok the narrator might get on nerves!
but interesting concepts

"However, it is routinely found that the interview is the worst selection test of all by this criterion."

Hmmm... most employers have discovered that interviews are 'cloning factories' where the interviewers invariably select clones of themselves as the perfect employee. There are various systems of attempting to prevent this within the civil service. At the most basic, it means using people who are as diverse as possible in attitude and experience, even if the panel is no more than two people (it's usually three). There is also a strict set of selection criteria and training for anyone who becomes a panellist. However, this still leaves us with people that make you wonder...

One of my indirect staff (i.e. managed by someone I manage) is distinctly odd and we are having to train him in social skills such as basic body language and linguistic clues to e.g. when someone has ended a conversation, personal space etc. He admits he went to foreign countries to broaden his experience of people because his family and employers always told him he was odd. Unfortunately, he travelled alone and stayed apart from everyone, so it didn't do him any good!

My colleague has someone who decided to work for another manager for a day without telling her own manager, just to see if she preferred the work. And one who laughs out loud at everything anyone says, inlcuding a simple request that she bring someone a cup of coffee. Aaaarrrgh!

HS, it is possible that the first person you mention, the one you are having to train in social skills, has Aspergers or the like. (It is in our family, and I have worked with people on the Autism spectrum, which includes Aspergers...

I remember doing the Executive Officer Qualifying Tests for the civil service on 2 ocasions. On both ocasions I did previous years papers before taking them and on the second ocasion got much better marks. If practice and familiarity made them easier I don't believe they can be considered a good assessment of ability.

Hi, BC.



Every test tends to be of two things: test-taking ability and, with a valid test, ability in whatever is supposed to be being tested. The scores of those tested will reflect both of these elements. Ideally everyone involved should be given the opportunity to maximise their test-taking skills by practice - so that these will be about equal for all takers and cancel one another out. The remaining differences will be due to the ability that we originally intended to test.

toxx

but I got much higher marks the 2nd time I took it
maybe I just prepared more, hard to recall after 15 years

BC. I guess you just became more prepared and experienced at test-taking. Let's take a silly example. Suppose someone who has difficulty reading and writing attempts a written test. They will do badly irrespective of what is being tested. If they acquire literacy skills and do the test again, the ability that's being tested should be reflected in the result. Test-taking ability is a bit like a kind of literacy.

toxx

probably, I suspect if I took it again now I'd do a lot worse rather like when they've done IQ tests for people throughout their life most got their highest marks during their school/college years

ink blots are my favourite

" If practice and familiarity made them easier I don't believe they can be considered a good assessment of ability."

Hello Blackberry.

The graduate tests are not permitted to be retained, bought or copied. The only possible practice is to resit the following year - by which time they will have altered the paper. Many are tests of logical reasoning of a complexity I have not yet found on anything available online or elsewhere.

For anyone who's interested in the biblical history debate

http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/ancient.htm

Interesting reference to Sir Isaac Newton's work in this field.

Noggin

I had a look at this Noggin, very interesting!

HS

I only did the Executive Officer Qualifying Tests which were difficult enough. Civil Service interviews were certainly better conducted than the ones in the private sector I've had. My present medium-sized employer did use tests related to the work we do but there was only a single person doing the interviews.

just like mice in a maze

Fiction. Involving a willing suspension of disbelief in unlikely plot motifs, magical happenings, and a simple good guy bad guy morality.

Become a polititan then or a maninstir