Unraveling the mystery: Why is scientific aptitude diagnostics still slowly finding its way into personnel selection?

There is still a high number of personnel selection tests that do not meet the minimum requirements for scientific testing. But why? We haven't fully solved the puzzle yet. This is how convincing Type indicators and other tests based on lay theories, of course, at first glance due to the simplicity of execution, evaluation and interpretation. As a result, HR managers receive a seemingly clear test result with fairly manageable effort. The best thing about it: the result sounds good — equally for everyone involved. It is therefore hardly surprising that the tests are well received by applicants and are also selling well to managers with less aptitude diagnostics experience. However, the fact that the added value of the procedures for identifying suitable applicants is more than doubtful should not be new to any of the HR managers by now.

‍

‍So why do HR managers continue to stick to these procedures despite better knowledge that they do not meet scientific standards?

No It is not due to a lack of methods based on measurement theory. This is because a variety of scientifically based and established intelligence tests are available, particularly in the area of cognitive methods. The dog is buried in another place: namely in the Candidate Experience. This is because common tests based on measurement theory (e.g. the Raven Matrits test to measure intelligence) often only contribute little to the candidate experience. Complete several hours of selection processes with intelligence and concentration tests on the way to your dream job — this doesn't sound very attractive to many applicants. The processes take too long, are not very appealing and have little or no digital support. It is therefore not surprising that only a few recruiters spend time and effort on their potential future colleagues Intelligence and personality tests with a variety of repetitive or at least similar sounding questions.

‍

The consequence:‍

Scientific methods remain in the drawer. Instead of using type indicators, which, although not very meaningful, are popular with applicants and are also easy and intuitive to explain to responsible managers. That seems to be the easiest solution for everyone.

‍

‍Scientificity vs. aptitude diagnostics

Does it always have to be a compromise?

But there is another way! Because this is how more and more companies are adapting to the needs of applicants. “Mobile-First and Gamification”: These are the buzzwords that seem to be keeping pace with the times. And not just for a young target group. Because surprisingly, the 50+ generation is the largest growing target group for gamification. Staff selection is quick, playful and easy via smartphone and makes applicants as fun as possible — and this applies equally to all generations. ‍

Definition of gamification:

Gamification describes the integration of playful elements in a non-playful context with the aim of making complex, often lengthy selection processes more exciting.

But care should also be taken here: because by focusing too strongly on the needs of applicants, the scientific nature of the procedures is in danger of falling by the wayside here too. One ideal to strive for is, of course, to combine the best of both worlds — scientific standards combined with a high level of candidate experience and use of the opportunities offered by new technologies.

However, this balancing act between science and candidate experience is rarely achieved. In this way, existing processes on the market can be carried out on a continuum based on their Scientificity and taking into account Candidate Experience classify (see figure).

I. Psychometric methods

“The classics”

The advantage:

✅ The procedures are scientifically based and build on established theories of academic psychology. There is also robust data relating to all key quality criteria of classical test theory (objectivity, reliability, validity). There are sufficiently large sample standards to classify the test results.
‍

The problem:

⛔ These established processes are scientifically based, but they are also often lengthy, exhausting, time-consuming and poorly tailored to the needs of the target group — The candidate experience falls by the wayside. As a result, although the methods are certainly suitable for the final selection of applicants, they are less suitable for an initial selection of applicants (pre-selection).

‍

II. Type indicators

“Aptitude diagnostics for laypeople”
‍

The advantage:‍

✅ The tests are easy and Requires little explanation, neither in implementation, nor in evaluation and interpretation. Die generality The statements and the high apparent validity also contribute to the fact that everyone involved seems to like the result in the end (cf. Barnum effect, Forer 1949). After all, who doesn't like to be an enthusiastic maker or an analytical thinker?
‍

The problem:‍

⛔ Trying to simplify reality to such an extent that it is possible to describe complex personalities based on just a few types results in an enormous loss of information. This means that although the results can be processed in a simple and practical way, the informative value is low. By trying to adapt the tests to market interests, scientific standards are lost.

‍

III. Recruiting games without reference to requirements

“The focus is on fun”
‍

The advantage:‍

✅ Recruiting games that do not involve direct requirements and scientific theory are often similar to a real computer game. Conclusions about personality traits and cognitive characteristics are drawn from the applicants' gaming behavior. The advantage is obvious: They're actually really fun. Homo ludens — the desire to play is human nature.
‍

The problem:‍

⛔ Due to the strong focus on Candidate Experience The relevance of the requirements and the scientific nature of the processes are often lost sight of. Aptitude testing should of course be fun: Yes! But it should also lead to identifying and hiring the most suitable people for a position. And this is not achieved through playful Brainteaser without reference to requirements (e.g. “How many tennis balls fit in a Boeing 747? “) through game environments in which applicants are classified into personality types based on individual moves. Classify applicants as willing to take risks because they choose the ramp instead of the stairs in a computer game, or because they inflate a balloon too much in a game — It has little to do with science. It is also questionable whether such games actually increase acceptance among applicants.

But you can decide for yourself whether you would rather be rejected for your dream job because of a poor result in a scientifically based intelligence test or because you inflated a balloon too much.

‍

IV. Psychometrically developed mini-games‍

“Fun and science in harmony”
‍

The advantage:‍

✅ Trust science or inspire applicants to join the company? The new generation of psychometric shows that this need not be a contradiction Game-based assessments. These are based on established test methods for psychological aptitude diagnostics based on measurement theory (State-of-the-art) and package them into appealing mini-games. The procedures can be completed in less time, are more entertaining and Discriminate less Minorities and subgroups (Bosco, Allen, & Singh, 2015). The processes are therefore up to date and combine the best of two worlds: Science and opportunities for new technologies.
‍

The problem:‍

⛔ Many providers tend to exaggerate with the applicant-friendly design of the test environment — as a result, the relationship between candidate experience and scientificity is no longer in harmony. It is important that psychometric mini-games are not about developing the most exciting computer game possible. Packed up in entertaining mini-games, staff selection is fun, but fun alone is not the main focus. Not every game will be fun for all applicants — but it doesn't have to be that either. Even when packaged in an appealing mini-game: The test remains what it is: a Test procedure.

‍

👉 Here you can read how Aivy manages to reconcile fun and science in playfully prepared psychometric testing methods.

‍

Sources

• Bosco, F., Allen, D.G., & Singh, K. (2015). Executive attention: An alternative perspective on general mental ability, performance, and subgroup differences. Personnel Psychology, 68, (4) 859—898.
• DIN German Institute for Standardization e.V. (2016). Requirements for procedures and their use in job-related aptitude assessments — DIN 33430. Berlin: Beuth.
• Forer B.R.: The Fallacy of Personal Validation; a Classroom Demonstration of Gullibility. In: Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Volume 44, 1949, pp. 118—123. PMID 18110193.
• Kanning, U.P. (2019). Personnel diagnostics standards. Design personnel selection professionally (2nd, revised and expanded edition). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
• Pittenger, D.J. (1993): Measuring the MBTI... And Coming Up Short. In: Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 54 (1), PP. 8—52
• Ryan, A. & Ployhart, R. (2000). Applicant Perceptions of Selection Procedures and Decisions: A Critical Review and Agenda for the Future. Journal of Management, 26, 565—606. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600308
• Schuler, H. & Hoft, S. (2007). Diagnosis of professional aptitude and performance. In H. Schuler (ed.), textbook Organizational Psychology (pp. 289—343). Bern: Huber.

‍