Posts Tagged ‘
online psychometric testing ’
Thursday, August 19th, 2010
In this session we will explore the following:
1. How to conduct a psychometric test administration session
Previously you were introduced to the importance of ensuring that every test administration session that you run remains the same in order to ensure consistency and hence reliability. By not adhering to this and by not being standardised in your test administration, you run the ultimate risk of invalidating the whole process because reliability is a precursor to validity. So this means that the company purchasing the tests has wasted money at the very least. Worse still however is the fact that many candidates may not see the process as fair (leading to problems in attracting applicants in the future) and likewise, the law in some countries may take issue with the way tests were administered leading perhaps to a bias in the process for one group compared to another. Given this, the following will discuss what is required to ensure you conduct a good, reliable psychometric test administration session.
Be prepared
Firstly, you need to be prepared!
Here is a list of things you need in order to be fully prepared:
1. Find and book an appropriate room. One that is large enough for the group of assessees and one which is in a quiet area. Ensure that on the day there will not be any nearby noise such as construction noise. Ensure that there are no fire drills planned. Consider the room temperature – make sure there is enough time for the room to cool down or heat up to a comfortable temperature before the assessment starts. Layout the room as per regular ‘exam conditions’ whereby desks are separated from each other.
2. Prepare a timetable for the day and send this out to candidates with their invitation letter (which we covered previously). Often, psychometric testing forms only part of a day-long series of assessments, that’s why a timetable is critical.
3. If you are using paper-based assessments, don’t forget to order the right quantity from the publisher or test distributor in good time before the session. We advise you do this at least 2 weeks before the day of assessment to allow for shipping.
4. Whether you are using paper-based or online tests, you must familiarise yourself with the tests and their instructions. Ensure that you fully understand the process of administering the tests. You don’t need to understand the questions in the test, but you do need to know each aspect of the process of administration with the specific test(s) you are using. You need to know when to pass each item (e.g., question booklet, answer sheet) to the candidate and when to collect it back in. You must also know how long each timed test lasts and have a stopwatch to assist with accurate timing. Also have some rough paper so that you can write down the time the test started. This helps if the stopwatch fails – you’ll know “roughly” when to stop the session. However we want 100% accuracy in the session, so let’s hope this backup is not required.
5. Ensure that you have the correct ratio of qualified test administrators to candidates. The best practice ration is 1:10. So for a room of 50 candidates you need 5 test qualified administrators. One administrator can just about keep their eye on 10 candidates, that’s why it would go against best practice to have only one or two administrators ensuring a room of 50 candidates do not cheat by looking at each other’s work or continuing with the test beyond the time limit.
6. Prepare a test log. This is sheet of paper upon which you will record events that happen during the session. The events range from the ordinary (i.e., 25 question booklets handed out and 25 returned or, test started at 3pm and finished at 3.25pm) to the less expected (i.e., candidate 34 reported that she has dyslexia).
Introducing the Psychometric Test Session to Candidates
Be friendly but professional. Introduce yourself and your role. Then go on to cover everything that you previously covered in your invitation letter to your candidates. This will include:
a) Why are we here today
b) Brief description of the assessments candidates are about to undertake
c) Reason why we are using psychometric tests (i.e., they are objective predictors of work performance)
d) How the tests fit into the overall process of selection or development (they should only be part of the process)
e) How long today’s session will last in total
f) What will happen after today’s session (e.g., you will hear from us within 7 days)
g) When feedback on test results will be given
h) A commitment that the results will remain confidential and be used only for this current purpose
i) Then ask candidates if they have any questions so far and thank them for agreeing to take the tests
j) Continuing with the introduction, convey any special emergency/fire instructions to candidates – this is a legal requirement for public gatherings in many countries.
k) Tell candidates where the washrooms are and that if they need to use them, a good time would be right now as they shouldn’t leave the room once the assessment commences and if they do, they certainly won’t get additional time! Also remind them that they may need their reading glasses to complete the assessments and if they left them outside, now is also a good time to go and get them!
At this point, people may have left the room for a couple of minutes following your advice. Once everybody has reassembled, continue with the more formal part of the test administration session. At this point you will refer to the publisher’s official instruction card. The publisher expects you to read the instructions and hand out/collect materials in exactly the same way and order presented here for consistency (and therefore reliability).
l) Tell candidates that you will now read from the test instructions and that this may make you sound a little more robotic for the next few minutes and that the reason you are doing this is to ensure that everybody gets the same instructions every time this test is administered. Ask them to listen very carefully to the instructions.
m) Read the instructions word for word. Ensure that you pause in the right places. Ensure that you hand out materials when told to do so. There are usually example questions which you will need to ask the candidates to complete. Do so and allow them a few minutes to complete. During this time you can walk around ensuring that they are completing the correct section of the answer sheet and are looking at the correct section of the question booklet. Correct anybody who is not but do not correct their answers until the example question time is up for all. Then you’ll need to go through the example question answers with candidates. At this stage you’ll be reading from the instructions. Do not go into lengthy explanations with candidates about why they may have got the answer wrong. Simply tell them not to worry, to do their best and remind them that the test in only part of the process.
o) If you are administering a personality questionnaire, remember to tell the candidates that there are no right or wrong answers – you are who you are! Tell them that personality assessments are used to assess candidate fit with the organisation and are more scientific and objective than interviews. Ask them to be honest and open and tell them that it is usually the first answer them comes to their mind which is most accurate; so do not spend too long deliberating over each question. Some candidates may say that they think their personality is different at work compared with home. Simply ask them to answer from a work perspective. Tell candidates that the test is untimed but that most people take around X minutes to complete.
p) Now it’s time for final questions. Ask candidates if they have any and answer them as best you can. It’s a good idea to consider possible questions before starting the sessions. We’ve put a few together here with answers:
http://www.psyasia.com/supportsuite/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=view&parentcategoryid=33&pcid=0&nav=0
p) That’s it, now it’s time to test. So, as per your instructions, ask candidates to turn over the page and begin. If you’re administering an aptitude/ability test, remember to start your stopwatch at that point and then write down the time the test started as an independent time check. Now you need to walk around the room adjudicating. Don’t answer any more questions – candidates need to concentrate now. If they need replacement pencils/rough paper, fine, but no talking of any kind! Check candidates are on the right page and responding to questions in the correct section of the answer sheet. If not, correct them quietly.
q) As soon as time is up, call “STOP” or whatever is mentioned in your instructions. For personality assessments, wait until everybody has finished. For aptitude tests, ensure that all pencils are placed on desks as soon as you call time. A candidate who continues beyond time can increase their score unfairly and invalidate the process!
r) Collect all materials in the order instructed by the publisher and remember to note down in your test log everything that comes back. You must also collect all rough paper from candidates. This is because they may have written questions down on the paper and now those questions may get leaked out of the testing room – this would obviously invalidate the test.
s) Once you have ensured that all materials were returned, you may close the session as follows:
- Thank candidates for attending
- For aptitude tests, reassure them that they are supposed to be difficult and designed so that not everybody completes all questions
- Remind candidates that everything will remain confidential
- Remind candidates about the feedback session
- Remind candidates about the next part of the selection or development process
- Ask them if they have any final questions
- Thank them all again and then dismiss them
Sticking to these guidelines and the publisher’s test administration instructions will help to ensure consistency in your administration sessions. As you know, this means higher reliability and hence you uphold the validity of the test.
Interested in learning more about psychometric testing for HRM? Keep reading – your next free session is not far away! To ensure you don’t miss a single instalment, we suggest you follow-us on twitter as each new post will be announced there. You may also like to join our face-to-face psychometric training courses in Singapore or Hong Kong – these range from simple introductory courses through to Certification Courses such as the BPS Level A and BPS Level B Certificates of Competence in Occupational Testing. Not in Singapore or Hong Kong? No problem – we also offer both recorded and live online training in psychometrics! For full details please see here or email us.
DO NOT COPY OR SAVE THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR COMPUTER.
THIS ARTICLE IS CLEARED FOR PUBLISHING ON PSYCHOLOGY1 GROUP SITES ONLY. IT REMAINS COPYRIGHT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF PSYASIA INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD. YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PUBLISH IT ON ANY OTHER SITE. YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO COPY/PASTE THIS ARTICLE OR TO SAVE IT TO YOUR LOCAL DRIVE. YOU ARE ONLY PERMITTED TO READ IT ONLINE AT OUR WEBSITE. VIOLATION OF THESE TERMS WILL RESULT IN BANNING OF OFFENDING IPS AND LEGAL ACTION FOR THOSE WHO REPUBLISH THIS ARTICLE WHETHER IT BE WITH OR WITHOUT A REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR.
Tags: aptitude tests, online psychometric course, online psychometric test training, online psychometric testing, Personality Test, Psychometric Test Administration Training, psychometric test training
Posted in
British Psychological Society Certificates of Competence in Occupational Testing, Free Online Psychometric Training Courses, Free Psychometric Testing Mini-Course, Free Webinars & Online Learning, HRM Training, Psychometric Testing |
No Comments »
Tuesday, August 10th, 2010
Introduction
Psychologist Vincent Wong carried out a review of psychometric tests being used in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and throughout Asia. In this analysis, more than 40 tests were reviewed which involved no less than 20 test developers. There were several focuses in the analysis which included practical information of the tests (information such as price and practical design issues), construct of the test, report design, technical details and training requirements.
Practical Information
Pricing
There exists a wide pricing range among tests developed by different test developers. In the lower end of the continuum one test provider provides tests for free in their entire product range and a section of the chargeable report will be produced. Obviously for user to obtain useful information they have to pay for the full report and this is certainly a marketing strategy. However in the perspective of psychometric this practice serious harm the integrity of the test as anybody can get access to the tests for unlimited number of times. Therefore it can only been seen as tests for people who are interested in trying out tests, rather than being usable in organizational settings. For more protected tests, prices range from USD$10 to more than USD$120 with some of the providers charge per usage while the others charge for subscription fee as well (usually paid annually).
Design
In this analysis, several design dimensions of the test were considered and they were the split between ipsative and normative measures, the type of scales that were employed, and other practical issue like medium of test administration.
The majority of the personality assessment tools (over 80%) employ normative measures (the type of psychometric tools that compare the respondent with a group of similar others, or the norm group) while the remaining ones employ an ipsative style (the type of psychometric tools that determine the preference among different personality traits within the respondent). Two exceptional case was identified which employs a mixed style, i.e. normative plus ipsative. The reason behind the popularity of normative style might down to the fact that for tests that were designed for selection purpose normative style was the better style to go with as it actually compare the respondents with the others. On the other hand ipsative measures can provide us with better knowledge about the preference or strength within the respondents. In line with this we found that most of the ipsative tests were preference or value tests which were designed for coaching or counselling purposes, although some ipsative measures that were designed for selection purposes were also identified. For the only tests that incorporated both normative and ipsative styles, the underlying connotation of the difference between normative and ipsative scales were utilized and it represented the discrepancy between the real and ideal self of the respondents.
The type of scale used by the tests is actually a function of whether they are ipsative or normative tests. For normative test the most popular scale type used was 5-point Likert Scale (Likert Scale is the type of scale that respondents choose among several options for the one that represent their thought most). 7-point scale was also quite common and there were a few occurrences of 3-point and 9-point scales. Other than using Likert scales, a few normative tests employed true or false scale. For ipsative tests force-choice scale was employed. One of the more popular version of ipsative scales asked the respondents to pick the option that describes them the best (usually termed as ‘most like me’) as well as option that describes them the worst (usually termed as ‘least like me’). Another appearing version of ipsative scale asked the respondents to put the available options into order, although this version was very uncommon.
Most of the surveyed tests, if not all, were designed for completing on computerized environment. While some of the tests can be administered online in an unsupervised manner, there were quite a few that required supervised administration. Whereas there were few test that provided different versions for supervised and unsupervised administration. Having more than one version allowed the result to be checked in a supervised manner after the candidates had passed the unsupervised session. Paper and pencil version of the tests were usually available with similar price of the computerized version although there were a few tests that did not provide paper and pencil version.
Although all the surveyed tests were not designed to be completed in a designated time, timer was identified in one test and it served the function of checking against random or thoughtful responses.
Measured Attributes
Personality
Among the different attributes, personality was the most popular one being measured. The majority of the personality measurements were built on the Big Five model of personality identified by Costa and McCrae (1985). While some of them retained the original five factors within the tests, about half of the surveyed tests restructured the factor compositions based on the result of the factor analysis or other theoretical support, for example one test split the factor of conscientiousness into ‘Industriousness’ and ‘Methodicalness’ while another developer incorporate the five factor model with behavioural tendencies and came up with a seven factor model. Another common phenomenon observed was that under each of the five factors the primary factors (ranges from 3-5 facets, also known as facets) were also measured, and they were actually more commonly used by test developers in report generation and interpretation. This was probably because the primary factors offer more detailed information thus higher flexibility in using them. Besides the Big Five model, another very popular personality model employed by test developers was Jung’s (1920) typology of personality. For instance two of the tests were developed from this theory as their entire theoretical foundation but one employed the original categorical model while the other one developed a continuum model. Besides building upon one theory, many tests extract personality factors from multiple personality theories and some of them measured as many as 34 personality dimensions. Example of the measured personality dimension includes ambition, initiative, concern for others, flexibility, and energy. Nearly most of the surveyed personality tests served multiple functions which included selection, training/development need analysis, counselling and other related applications such as personal development, conflict management and team building. Test developers further added the applicability of personality tests in different situations by providing multiple versions of reports alongside with a general personality profile.
Value, Motive and Preference
Another popular attributes being measured were value, motive and preference. Although these are three distinct attributes, we found it was common that test publisher combine either two or all three attributes into one test. These tests were less commonly employed in the situation of selection but more widely used in counselling and developmental scenarios, although some of them were also designed to be used in selection as well. For tests that measures value and motive, normative measures were found to be more common and ipsative measures were more common among preference tests. Another related attribute being measured was interest and they were mainly designed to be a career development tool.
Others
Other measured attributes included measure of leadership styles, team role, behavioural tendency, Emotional Intelligence, self-efficacy, work ethic, interpersonal communication, sales orientation, customer service orientation, learning style and even work effectiveness tendency.
Report Style
Nearly all of the surveyed tests have multiple reports and they are all in narrative form alongside with a graphic representation (usually bar charts) of the measured characteristic. However there was one test that did not employ narrative style in their report at all. Graphical representations with a sentence long description for each factor were employed instead of the narrative format. 2 dimensional typology graphs and score matrix were also employed for some type of reports. Some reports made use of different colours in representing different dimensions being measured yet some others used colour to indicate extreme scores (for example green representing high scores while red representing low scores). Colour was also frequently employed for matching test scores with a standard or an established profile, with green meaning a good match and red representing a poor match.
Report Content
Generic Personality Profile
For all the surveyed tests, there was at least some form of generic personality profile provided in the report, whether in the form of narrative writing, matrix of scores, 2 dimensional typology graphs, bar charts or broken line graphs. Most commonly the personality profile was consisted of a graphical representation of the test scores on different dimensions with a brief descriptive narrative alongside it. In this generic personality profile the test scores, usually in form of sten scores or percentile were presented. Raw scores were also found in some reports. About half of the survey tests also presented the variation of the test score in the report and a few had an explanation on the meaning behind that. In all cases primary dimensions measured by the tests were reported in this section. Secondary or higher-level composite dimensions were also frequently reported in this section.
Strengths and Limitations
Strengths and limitations were another very popular qualities being reported, although we identified a few tests that do not report them. In reporting strengths and limitations some tests referred them to very specific behavioural terms while there existed some tests simply referred high or low scores in particular dimensions as strengths or limitations. Few tests incorporated contextual factors into the reporting of strengths and limitations were identified and they were more common in purpose-specific reports (for example reports designed for leadership development or team building). Overall tests tended to present information about strengths and limitations of the candidates.
Competencies
Leadership, team work, interpersonal skills or orientation and problem solving orientation were found to be the most popular competencies being tapped. Other competencies being tackled by the surveyed tests included achievement orientation, customer service orientation, management style, decision making, planning and organization, influence and negotiation, delivery, creativity, analytic orientation, coping style and thinking style. Rather than being measured directly in the tests, these competencies were often generated from several primary dimensions of personality. They were found to be written in context of work and behavioural terms were employed heavily in order to aid comprehensibility of the report. Furthermore competency based reports were identified and leadership related reports were the one which appeared most. Competency based reports for sales and managerial positions were also popular.
Interview prompts
Interview prompts were found in some reports. These included general instruction of how to use the report correctly to enhance the effectiveness of a follow-up interview as well as specific suggested interview questions to be asked for a particular candidate. The number of interview prompts varies from three to ten plus suggested questions and some reports even included the expected answer from the candidate. These interview prompts also served as a check or back up of the validity of the tests.
Training (Development) Needs
Several tests with a separated training need or developmental report were identified. For tests that did not have a designated report for training needs, it was surprising to found that the section outlining training was absent for majority of the surveyed tests, given most of them were designed to be used in training need analysis. When present, the training needs outlined (or some tests referred it to be ‘action plans’) were usually generated from the unfit aspects identified or areas that were not up to the normative standard. Simple description about the needs per se was common and a few reports were found to be providing concrete training suggestions.
Cultural Fit
Cultural fit information was identified in a few test reports. This information could include the fit of the candidate with the organizational culture, task nature as well as co-workers and it existed in several forms. The more popular way to compute it was comparing between the candidate’s score with the norm or an ideal profile. One test generated this information by comparing the candidate with the best performers. Yet another test presented the information in light of the candidate himself by stating what culture or environment will be the best fit for the candidate.
Technical Information
Technical information of the test included normative data, reliability and validity data as well as development procedure of the test. They are the most important information to be readily accessible to the public but unfortunately some of them were virtually absent for some of the surveyed tests. Normative data were found to be the most reported information and reliability data followed. However evidence for validity as well as development procedure of the test were absent for some of the tests despite the claim of ‘scientifically validated’ in their marketing materials. For tests that did not provide any of the above mentioned information the integrity of them were seriously in doubt.
Training Requirement
Training requirement of the tests varied from no need training for an extreme case (which was the free online test) to BPS Level B plus additional training (approximately 7 days of training in total). For most of the tests 2-3 days of training for the specific test was common but this type of training would not be recognized by a different test provider. The BPS (British Psychological Society) Competence in Occupational Testing was found to be the most widely accepted qualification by the test providers. Most of the tests could be administered by a BPS Level B qualified user but there existed some tests which required a conversion training (1-2 days long) in order to be a qualified user of them.
Tags: aptitude test, online psychometric test training, online psychometric testing, Personality Assessment, Personality Test, personality test hong kong, personality test singapore, psychometric test, psychometric tests in asia, Psychometrics
Posted in
Ability, Aptitude & Intelligence, British Psychological Society Certificates of Competence in Occupational Testing, Chinese Personality Testing, Personality Tests, Psychometric Testing, Recruitment & Selection |
No Comments »
Friday, July 30th, 2010
It’s perhaps quite natural to believe that the Chinese personality is so different to others that it requires a special psychometric test to assess it. What better way to sell your new Chinese personality test than to state that it is “high time a test for the Chinese” were developed. However, this throws doubt upon the utility of rigorously developed international psychometric tests of personality.
Given the above, we embarked on a research program to assess whether Chinese people differ significantly comparied to others in terms of personality structure and whether personality tests that purport to assess Chinese Personality are able to predict any more work performance than internationally developed tests have already been proven to do!
You can read our research findings it: personality.cn, our Chinese Personality at Work Research Site.
No time to read the whole site? Here’s a quick summary:
Locally developed psychometric tests which purport to assess “indigenous” aspects of Chinese Personality were found to be less reliable than reputable internationally developed tests of personality. Furthermore, there is a big question as to whether so-called “indigenous” traits are Chinese-specific. Issues such as traditionalism or face also exist in other cultures! Moreover, the research has demonstrated that whatever we choose to believe about Chinese Personality, locally developed (Hong Kong) tests of “indigenous” personality add nothing to the prediction of performance at work that is not already accounted for by reputable internationally developed personality tests.
We present this research in a free HRM webinar which you can watch here. We held a vote at the beginning and end of our webinar whereby we asked attendees if they believed that Chinese Personality is so different that Chinese people need their own personality test. At the beginning of the webinar, the majority of the attendees said yes! By the end of the webinar only one attendee still believed this to be the case! We recommend choosing well designed psychometric tests with high reliability and validity. Personality is a universal construct, thus locally developed tests may have little benefit to the hiring manager!
Tags: chinese personality test, HRM, hrm webinars, human resource management, human resources, online psychometric testing, Performance at Work, Performance Management, Personality Assessment, Personality Test, personality test hong kong, personality test singapore, Personality Tests, Recruitment, reliability of psychometrics, validity of psychometrics
Posted in
Chinese Personality Testing, Free Webinars & Online Learning, HRM, HRM Training, Human Resources Articles (General), Performance at Work, Personality Tests, Psychometric Testing, Recruitment & Selection |
No Comments »
Tuesday, April 27th, 2010
Saville Consulting Wave® – Highest Validity per 15 minutes of test-time!
 The Saville Consulting Wave was developed by the originator of the OPQ and co-founder of SHL, Professor Peter Saville as an alternative to the static assessments available in the market. Wave assesses candidate’s motives and talents within a validation-centric framework. It was validated within 100 separate businesses.
The tool uses both normative and dynamic ipsative questions and has been shown to have greater validity in predicting performance and leadership than any tool it has been compared to in research. Furthermore, the shorter version of Wave, the Focus Questionnaire has more validity per 15 minutes of test-taking time than any comparison questionnaire.
Profile jobs, run 360 performance appraisal, assess personality type for team-building, assess entrepreneurial potential and provide extensive development advice all within one framework
The performance culture framework which underlies the Saville Consulting Wave allows the tool to be used extensively for different HR applications from recruitment/selection through to performance appraisal and development.
Follow the links below for further details:
View some sample reports from Wave here
Become accredited to use the Wave
with a 25% early-bird discount
Take action now! Your competitors may already be trained to use this century’s revolution in personality assessment. We’ve trained people from the big consulting firms to small local careers advisors to recruitment consultants, government ministries and universities. We want to provide you with an incentive to join the increasing number of professionals who value high validity in selection and support from local psychologists in Asia. PsyAsia International, Asia’s leader in psychometric training, runs the Wave training in Singapore and Hong Kong. We’re offering a 25% early-bird discount for our next courses in those locations:
Wave Conversion Course: 1 Day – View course details
For those with BPS Level B or those who are qualified to use
a substantive personality assessment such as OPQ but not including tests such
as MBTI/DISC/HARRISON etc.
SINGAPORE: 17 June (SG$1200 / SG$900)
HONG KONG: 6 July (HK$6000 / HK$4500)
Wave Module Course: 2 Days – View course details
For those without a qualification in a substantive personality
assessment.
SINGAPORE: 17-18 June (SG$2050 / SG$1538)
HONG KONG: 6-7 July (HK$9888 / HK$7416)
For the early-bird offer (25% discount), please register at http://www.psyasia.com/register
and quote WAVESEB for Singapore courses and WAVEHEB
for Hong Kong Courses. Deadline is 15 May for Singapore and 31 May for Hong
Kong.
Note – delegates on our BPS Level B course in
Singapore always get 50% discount off the Wave Conversion
course which follows their Level B training. More details at http://www.psyasia.com/bpscourses
Course Reviews from Previous Attendees
“Informative, relevant to work, knowledgeable facilitator”
Danny
Hay Group
“Good introduction to the tool and practical session was useful”
Geraldyn Fong
Managing Consultant (Psychologist)
Hudson Global Resources, Singapore
“Insightful and informative. The methodology behind the Saville
Consulting Wave Report is light years ahead of other psychometric tests yet
it is a breeze to use! The interface between motives, competencies and culture
is exactly the missing link that recruiters are looking for.”
Diana Yeo
Ministry of Defence, Singapore
“A highly practical and enjoyable approach to the application
of an extremely useful tool for selection and development – well worth the investment,
highly recommended.”
Neville Pearsall
Director HR
RMIT International University, Vietnam
Not ready for training and accreditation
but still want to use the Wave?
Then please consider PsyAsia’s Psychologist-on-Call™
service instead. Our registered psychologists will take care of the complete process for you, including a call and behavioural interview for your candidates and a feedback session with the decision-maker. More details at http://www.psyasia.com/psychologist_candidate_screening.php.
Tags: 360 appraisal, 360 performance appraisal, HRM, human resource management, Leadership, online psychometric testing, Performance Appraisal, Personality Assessment, personality test singapore, Personality Tests, psychometric test, psychometric test training, psychometric training singapore, Saville Consulting Wave, saville consulting wave singapore, Saville Wave Training, saville wave training hong kong, saville wave training singapore
Posted in
360 appraisal, HRM, Job Analysis, Leadership, Performance Appraisal, Personality Tests, Psychometric Test Training and Accreditation, Psychometric Testing, Recruitment & Selection, Saville Consulting Wave, Saville Wave Training |
No Comments »
Friday, January 15th, 2010
Types of Bias in Psychometric Test Translation
With the demand and need for psychological tests increasing in various different cultures and countries, there has been much greater awareness regarding some of the issues that are associated with the development or adaptation of tests to be used in contexts and situations that may be different from which the test was developed for. This article focuses on one of the key aspects of translating tests, the types of bias that can occur.
When utilizing the test in a new cultural group, it is not quite as simple as directly translating the test, administering it and then comparing the results for its validity. There are a number of issues that need to be considered such as whether the area assessed with the test applies to the new culture or whether is may be biased towards that group and whether what is assessed by the test also has similar behavioral indicators? These are just some of the potential areas where bias can be found in the translation of tests and affect the validity of the test being utilized in the new context.
Van der Vijer & Hambleton (1996) differentiates between three distinct types of bias that may affect the validity of tests that have been adapted for different cultural contexts and these are construct bias, method bias and item bias.
Construct bias occurs when the construct (e.g. personality) that is measured by the test displays significant differences between the original culture for which it was developed and the new culture where it is going to be utilized. These differences can occur in the way that the construct was formulated and developed as well as in the relevant behaviors that are associated with the construct. It is critical to examine whether the underlying theory of the test is subject to construct bias and this can be examined through the studies examining the construct and its associated behaviors in the context that it will be utilized in. If there are significant differences found in these studies, it may indicative that there is construct bias. Major revisions may be required to overcome this bias. If not, the validity of the test will be affected.
Method bias refers to factors or issues related to the administration of the test that may affect the validity of the test. Examples of areas that method bias can occur include social desirability, acquiescence response styles, the conditions in which the test was conducted and the motivation of the respondents. Across cultures, there potentially can be differences that can occur in these areas and these can affect the way that the respondents answer the items in the test. This potentially may lead to differences between found that can be erroneously attributed to cultural differences when in fact, these differences are the result of differences in the administration procedures. As a result, it is threat to the validity of tests that have been adapted for use in new cultures. Test developers also not only need to focus on the adaptation of the test itself but also need to be aware of issues regarding the implementation of the test in a new context.
Item bias is another source of bias that can occur in the translation of tests and these refer to biases that occur with the items in the test. This is usually the result of either poor translation choices for items or due to culturally inappropriate translations. For example, the phrase “kick the bucket” is essentially a phrase that referring to passing away in the Western context and is commonly known by most people in that culture; unfortunately, this phrase would have no meaning for people from cultures without any prior experience with that phrase. In this manner, a literal translation of that phrase would be a poor translation as it does not convey the correct meaning of the item. The items in the test need to be culturally equivalent, where the meaning of the items needs to be correctly translated so as to maintain the validity of the test in the new cultural context.
These are some of the biases that may occur during the translation of tests. Test developers will need to be aware of the sources of bias and take the appropriate measures to avoid these biases.
References:
Van der Vijer, F. and Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89-99.
Psychometric Training in Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and China
If you are serious about using psychometric tests properly then we recommend joining PsyAsia International’s Psychometric Assessment at Work Course which leads to a certificate of competence in Occupational Testing Level A and Level B from the British Psychological Society. The Course is run publically in Singapore and Hong Kong or in-house anywhere.
More details about BPS Level A and B in Singapore and Hong Kong
Online Psychometric Training – Worldwide
Alternatively, you might be interested in introductory Online Psychometric Test Training presented live by a registered psychologist. PsyAsia is offering a special fee of just US$12 for anybody who registers for the February online psychometric training course!
More details about online psychometric test training
Tags: bias in psychometric tests, HRM, online psychometric test training, online psychometric testing, Personality Test, psychometric test training, psychometric training hong kong, psychometric training singapore, validity of psychometrics
Posted in
Ability, Aptitude & Intelligence, Human Resources Articles (General), Personality Tests, Psychometric Testing |
No Comments »
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009
PsyAsia International is pleased to announce a special offer from Saville Consulting. For clients interested in attending our Saville Consulting Wave® Training in Singapore or Hong Kong and who are able to send 2 or more delegates from their organisation, Saville Consulting Asia Pacific are offering a complimentary Saville Oasys Online Psychometric Assessment System.
Oasys is a cutting-edge management system for the administration, scoring, reporting and interpretation of the world’s most revolutionary psychometric assessments. These include the Saville Consulting Wave®, the Saville Consulting Wave Focus, the newly released and revolutionary Saville Personality Profile, a full range of modern and innovative aptitude tests*, a job profiler for use prior to selection and a 360 performance appraisal. Use of the Oasys system cuts down on the costs of psychometric testing in organisations as clients have full control over their candidates and pay a system fee per report rather than paying us a higher bureau service fee. Oasys usually sells for SG$6000 or HK$30,000 so this is a very special offer. It is limited and will expire after the following training course dates and the system will then sell at the regular fee.
To avail of the offer, please register at least 2 people from the same organisation for one of the following courses at http://www.psyasia.com/register
SINGAPORE COURSES
Wave Conversion: 25 November 2009
(for those who already hold a qualification in a substantive personality test or BPS Level B)
Wave Full Training: 25-26 November 2009
(for those without a qualification in a substantive personality test)*
HONG KONG COURSES
Wave Conversion: 1 December 2009
(for those who already hold a qualification in a substantive personality test or BPS Level B)
Wave Full Training: 1-2 December 2009
(for those without a qualification in a substantive personality test)*
IN HOUSE COURSES
PsyAsia International is also accredited to run in-house courses for the Saville Wave. The same offer will apply. By engaging PsyAsia to run an in-house course for you before December 2009, we will be able to supply one Saville Oasys System on a complimentary basis. Please contact us for further details on our in-house training for Saville Wave.
More details on the courses
More details on Saville Consulting Wave
*for those without training to BPS Level A or an equivalent, the aptitude tests will be disabled in the system until such time as the client undergoes such training. PsyAsia offers BPS Level A Certification Training in Singapore and Hong Kong.
Tags: online psychometric systems, online psychometric testing, psychometric test training hong kong, psychometric test training singapore, save consulting wave singapore, saville consulting oasys, Saville Consulting Wave, saville wave, saville wave test, Saville Wave Training, saville wave training hong kong, saville wave training singapore, waves test
Posted in
Performance at Work, Psychometric Test Training and Accreditation, Psychometric Testing, Recruitment & Selection |
No Comments »
|
|
|
