Personality test for jobs

Personality test for jobs

A personality test is a psychological test procedure for the detection of personality characteristics. In contrast to performance tests that measure cognitive ability, personality tests, it goes in the description and prediction of emotional and motivational aspects of behavior. Personality tests are used everywhere, where are the personality characteristics of an investigation or a diagnostic decision-making involved target. In clinical psychology, one of the oldest areas of application (eg, MMPI ) or accents are the personality captured it. Even better coordination of therapeutic interventions on the personality of the client or the measurement of success (the desired improvements are occurred?) Are important areas of application?

In the personnel selection and development, they are used to assess the suitability of candidates .

The basic psychological research uses a personality test for jobs to identify new insights into inter individual differences in experience and behavior.

In practice, personality tests do not provide absolute (generalized) descriptions of the personality of a person, but only hints, because of the additional procedures, such interviews must be substantiated. They serve to objectify subjective (individual) experience.

As in any psychological personality test for jobs, the test provokes a personality test subjects a behavior which is recorded. The test takes place under standardized conditions, ie, that disturbing situational influences should be eliminated as possible and that the instruction is specified exactly. Most of the respondent answered questions (self-assessments, external assessments) or evaluated ambiguous stimulus material (objective personality tests, if the relationship between response and the interpretation is indirect). The collection and analysis can be performed manually (paper-pencil tests) or computerized (? Online Assessments) happen. The latter offer the possibility of long distance or language barriers to overcome.

Particularly in the use of personality test for jobs for selection of employees, the problem of manipulation of the results is by the subjects: The questions can almost always see close to what traits their reply to and which ones are which reported positive for the (leadership) position.

Even if an attempt is made by skillful control issues, the coherence (internal consistency) of the response to ensure the problem remains. The mere fact that the respondent believes he can manipulate the personality test for jobs results in his senses leads to a distortion of the results. Studies have shown that test subjects who were asked to manipulate results, it was also in the situation. ( Ones, 1999; Martin, Bowen & Hunt, 2002)

By contrast, argued that human beings can behave adapted in different roles. The ability to recognize the need to adapt and then to behave accordingly (or to show the response) can also be seen as a test result. In some personality test for jobs, is therefore a ‘consistency ratio’ and allows the recording of the response behavior of an interpretation of test results at this level.

Psychometric tests are distinguished from projective tests. Psychometric tests are usually questionnaires by which personality characteristics of subjects with the average values ??of a standard sample are compared. In contrast, the subject in some projective tests is asked to indicate weak structured stimulus material; be drawn from the interpretation by a primarily qualitative analysis as to the personality, intrapsychic conflicts, and relationship structures. Another form of projective tests, the subjects can produce their own material, which is then interpreted by the test administrator, or together with the volunteers. Here are some signs written tests and the graph logical analysis are mentioned.

A further distinction is direct and indirect personality tests (also called objective personality tests). In the former, for example, all self-assessments, where the acquired personality characteristics and content are in a relationship to the test requirement. In indirect (objective) personality tests no easily discernible correlation between the requirement of the test and the measured personality trait (example: it is the length is estimated from lines and given feedback as to whether this is right or wrong – which is independent of the actual accuracy. measured in reality, for example, frustration tolerance, or risk-taking). It was hoped that these tests are less easily answerable or by social desirability are.

Many of the most widely used psychometric personality test for jobs such as the NEO-FFI (see Ostendorf, 2004) or in ZPID test archives freely accessible Big-Five personality test B5T [2] , are based on the Big-Five personality model , the five basic personality dimensions postulated [3] . Other less common tests of this kind the TIPI (Trier Integrated Personality Inventory) of Becker (1999) and the HPI (Hamburg Personality Inventory, see Andresen, 2004). A method has long been employed in Germany is the Giessen-Test ( Beckmann , Brähler & Judge , 1991). For Personality Assessment widespread among children of the personality questionnaire for children between 9 and 14 years (PFK 9-14) by Seitz & Noise (2003).

Psychometric personality tests that are suitable for use in the economic context, are: the Bochum Inventory for job-related personality description ( Hossiep & Paschen, 2003), the OPQ32, shapes, and some more (all in coffin & Wottawa, 2004). Another quality criterion is a comparison with the DIN 33430 , which deals with the process although the staff evaluation and selection, but nevertheless called quality criteria for personality tests and offer an opinion (DIN-check, Prof. M. Kesting). Then are impassive and related criteria appropriate tests (for example, Captain, Harrison Assessments).

Follow a different logic, such as projective tests: the Rorschach Test , the Thematic opinion test , the test mark and the sign test tree . In child and adolescent psychotherapy include, among other family pets , family trees as important process. Projective tests are in practice, despite proven inadequate fulfillment of quality criteria psycho diagnostic process, still used, but have since come in this test class even more valid new developments, such as the operant motive test (OMT; Kuhl & Scheffer, 2004). Projective tests are appreciated by many practicing psychotherapists, particularly psycho dynamically oriented therapy directions, despite the criticisms as supporting the process of hypothesis generation. A thorough knowledge and clinical experience collection are considered necessary to increase the quality of projective techniques. Despite their potential usefulness in the psychotherapeutic process should projective psychological testing from test view cannot be used to objectify and assessment of personality, for example in selection situations.

After several investigations using about 25% of all enterprises and 50% even on the major companies in the western EU states personality tests in their selection process. For Switzerland, the value for all companies is a study by the University of Zurich in 2005 about 33% [4] [5] . Especially for leadership positions, such methods are applied. The three most important criteria used by HR professionals, according to the study of the selection process are applied to University of Zurich, validity, acceptability and economics. Most personality tests, however, meet the requirements, the selection of personnel specialists are not, moreover, they are usually not scientifically substantiated (ie, valid and reliable). They are often not recognized on a scientific theory. [5] . Chief scientific criteria for evaluating such methods are:

Theoretical background for personality test for jobs

Scientific soundness

Existing standards (which used comparison population) and

Accordance with the requirements.

Alone, six of the nine in Switzerland’s most widely used method (The Master Person Analysis MPA, MBTI, the DISC personality profile, Insights Discovery, Thomas system and Insights MDI) based on the personality typology of Carl Gustav Jung normal or on the theory of ‘Emotions of People ‘by Marston , both of which are over 80 years old. In a statement, the Professional Association of German Psychologists to an opinion about Insights MDI makes it clear ‘that the type theory of CG Jung in the trade as’ antiquated model with no empirical evidence is. ‘ The approach of Marston is called […] as ‘typological approach without empirical research’. ‘ The recommendation with regard to the opinion Insights MDI is: ‘… it is based on theoretically and scientifically outdated unsecured models. From its use must therefore be discouraged in personnel selection and development, coaching and training. ‘Even the HDI (‘ Brain Dominance Instrument ‘) and 16-PF relied on outdated theories and make false assumptions. Of both methods is discouraged by the aforementioned study by the University of Zurich as well performed personality test for jobs. Only one of the nine most commonly used method, the GDP is well-founded, according to the study as timely and scientifically. But here also is important to note what the procedure was developed and what is not: It has been specially developed for use in professional life and it’s only for personality test for jobs is good but due to lack of measurement model is limited for the potential analysis.