The Apollo Profile is an online psychometric test that assesses personality for the workplace. Apollo is different to ALL other personality assessments because it compares your candidate’s personality to those rated as excellent performers in various occupational groups. This short video shows how to use the online testing system to compare your multiple candidates with one of those occupational groups by using Apollo’s value-added online Job Profiler Module.
PsyAsia is pleased to advise clients that we have extended our special 50% discount offer for those who register for our Psychometric Test Training Course: BPS Level A & B in Singapore until the end of January. Any client who registers for the Level A and B course will be offered a 50% discount on the Saville Consulting Wave accreditation course that follows the day after the Level B training; and/or, 50% off our Behaviour-based Interview Course which is confirmed for the day immediately before the Level A training. Furthermore, we are pleased to continue to offer a 50% discount off the Behaviour Based Interview Course for any client who registers for our 4-day Human Resource Management Course in Singapore on 22-25 February.
Training places are limited and courses are now beginning to fill, so please register asap to ensure your place. The above discount offers will expire on 31 January.
If you are in Hong Kong, you can also avail the offers by joining our Hong Kong Psychometric Assessment Level A and B course in March.
All course dates and details as well as email links can be found from here: http://dates.psyasia.com
Kindly contact us on Singapore +65 6521 3131 or Hong Kong +852 8200 6005 for full details.
Professor Peter Saville recently appeared on BBC TV to discuss the Saville Consulting Wave Psychometric Personality Assessment. The BBC’s Technology Correspondent, Rory Cellan-Jones underwent the Wave questionnaire and then received feedback from Professor Saville.
The Leadership Report discussed by Professor Saville is powered by Wave Professional Styles and based on Saville Consulting’s brand new Leadership Model. It has been validated both against theoretical leadership constructs and empirically using international workplace performance and effectiveness criterion data.
It combines styles, situations and underlying leadership potential to assess the impact of leadership on people, tasks and the growth of the organization as a whole. As it is based on the Wave model, the Leadership Report can also distinguish between motives and talents and highlights areas of potential over or under-rating.
The Leadership Report has a wide range of applications including in selection, succession planning, coaching or development and in assessing a leader’s fit to their environment.
PsyAsia International is offering a 15% discount on Saville Consulting Wave training for anybody who registers after viewing this video and before 15 December 2010. Use promotion code BBC when booking your place. The next courses will run in March 2011 in Singapore and Hong Kong. Full details at http://www.psyasia.com/saville-consulting-wave-training-module.php.
Identity is a self-perception personality
questionnaire that measures important individual differences
between how people prefer to behave in a workplace setting.
It was developed specifically for the world of work
and is supported by robust research proving its effectiveness
for use in many areas of business and personal development.
The questionnaire is available in English, simplified
Chinese and traditional Chinese.
Developed to be the most comprehensive personality assessment
tool, Identity measures 36 Primary Scales – which
are specific areas of personality related to the world
of work. It is fully validated for making sensitive
selection decisions and found through scientific
research to be more predictive of leadership performance
than even ability tests or interviews.
Sample Cover Page
The PsyAsia logo can be replaced with your corporate
logo if you have your own Identity System. Also note
the PTC logo that confirms Identity is a quality
test registered with the British Psychological Society
Psychological Testing Centre.
Narrative Report
This report is written in second or third person depending
on whether you are using it as a feedback report for
the candidate or for the decision-maker. Text-based
narrative reports are the only type of report available
to untrained users. All other reports/graphics require
a certification.
Quick Look Page
This gives an indication as to the accuracy of the candidate’s
responses and shows you where you need to focus for
additional probing in an interview. For this fake candidate,
the report tells us we need to probe on every competency!
For other candidates you may see “Strong”
and/or “OK” in place of “Further Probing”.
Profile Chart
This is the first page of a 2-page chart which provides
the candidate’s score for each scale in Identity. Labels
and descriptions on either side assist in accurate interpretation
of each scale score.
Pre-Interview Report
This is a sample page from Identity’s Pre-Interview
Report. Personality test reports should be followed
up with a good behavioral interview. This report assists
in this process by providing example questions to ask
the candidate based on their profile.
Derived scales
Assess aspects of the person such as Jungian Type, Learning
Styles, EQ, Team Roles, Leadership Style and so on.
All of these charts come at no additional cost.
The above are just a few examples of
pages from Identity reports. Identity offers a number
of different reports: Pre-Interview, Comprehensive,
Career Focus and Candidate Feedback. Unlike other psychometric
personality tests, clients only pay once for the candidate
rather than for each report generated.
If you already hold BPS Level B or a certification
in a substantive personality assessment, you may use
Identity by simply purchasing and reading the manual.
For those who require training, we are pleased to offer
a “new report release” special 15%
discount on our 26-27 October training in Singapore
and 29-30 November training in Hong Kong if you register
by 5 October. This discount increases to 20%
if you send 2 or more people. Use discount
codes IDMAIL15 and IDMAIL20 for the 15% and 20% discounts
respectively when registering
here. For clients who are not interested in training
we can offer our psychologist-on-call
service or a very limited text-only report.
All qualified users of Identity get a FREE online system
- so, you can set up test sessions and produce reports
whenever you want – even at night and on weekends!
Identity Pricing
If you would like a copy of our fees list,please email us.
1. Computer-based scoring of psychometric tests
2. Hand-scoring of psychometric tests
3. Norming of test results
4. The link between scoring of tests and reliability
Converting raw scores to standardised scores and using representative norms will be covered in a later session.
Once a psychometric test has been properly administered, it needs to be scored. Depending on the test chosen, you may have a few options.
a. You can opt for computer-based scoring.
This would work if you had administered the test using computer software or if you had asked your candidate to complete an online test. For online tests, this option is good because it is less likely to involve scoring errors! Your candidate completes the test online and then the system immediately and automatically scores the test. There is no additional input required and hence less chance for error. This pre-supposes the publisher has used the correct scoring algorithms of course. Whilst most reputable test publishers will, we do know of one who had an error in a test battery that was not spotted until one of their distributors pointed out that his partner had done poorly on a test for which she was a subject matter expert!!
If you administer the test to your candidate using desktop software, you should be able to automatically score it in the same way as above.
b. You can opt for hand-scoring or a bureau service or keyed input followed by computer-scoring. You are most likely to use this option if you administered the test to your candidate using hard-copy test booklets and answer sheets.
Firstly, you’ll need to double-check the answer sheets to ensure that there are no irregularities. Ensure that it’s obvious which answer the respondent selected. Be careful with any “blobs” that may have appeared from ink or pencil smudges etc. If a respondent has changed their mind after selecting a response and has crossed it out, ensure that you only use the most recent response in scoring.
For hand-scoring using a scoring key, you’ll next need to align the scoring key with the answer sheet. The exact requirements will vary based on the test you are using, so ensure that you read and fully understand the instructions provided by the test publisher.
Once you have scored the responses, double-check your scoring. You then need to record the score. The score you calculate at this point is called the RAW SCORE. On its own, a raw score means nothing. If I tell you that you scored 54 on a numerical reasoning test or 75 on the extraversion scale of a personality assessment, you’ll need to ask me more questions before you truly understand your score. The most important question to ask would be how your score compared to others. The comparison of your score with others is called norming.
It is called norming because we compare a candidate’s score to a group of others (called the norm group) who completed the test in the past. To undertake this comparison, you can do it by way of a simple calculation or through the use of norm tables either developed by yourself or, more usually, supplied by the test publisher.
Norm tables allow us to use a standard vocabulary for expressing a candidate’s score in relation to others who have taken the test and it is for this reason that we call your new score a standardised score. A standardised score is simply your candidate’s raw score, compared with the norm group and expressed in terms of how the candidate scored in relation to others. We’ll consider standardised scores in more detail in a later lesson. You’ll see by now that your objective is to calculate the candidate’s standard score as this is the way to achieve maximum meaning. If you opt for paper and pencil tests and hand-scoring, the process can be lengthy. So are there other options?
We have already seen above that we can simply have the candidate complete an online test. However, you may not wish to do this if there are many candidates. This is because you will need as many computers as candidates if you are going to supervise them. If you are using an unsupervised test, the candidate can complete on their own PC, but you may be concerned about possible cheating and so on. This is why you may end up using paper and pencil tests (in a supervised environment). However, there is an alternative to arduous hand-scoring if you have used paper and pencil tests.
You can use the bureau service of your psychometric test distributor. You just need to check that the answer sheet is properly completed, clear and free from any irregularities and then send the answer sheet to the distributor by fax or scanned email. The bureau service will then score the test for you and send you a report.
Furthermore, you may have another option yet. If you have access to a computer or online test system, you can probably also enter the candidate’s responses to each question into the system and have the system produce the report. This is essentially what the bureau service above does for you. Doing it yourself should work out cheaper. Do be careful when you transpose the responses though – accuracy is far more important than speed unless you want to invalidate the whole process!!
Self-scoring answer sheets: Some psychometric tests are supplied with self-scoring answer sheets. These are much easier to use than non-self-scoring answer sheets. In this case you usually need to open up the answer sheet by tearing off some perforated card. Inside the answer sheet, the candidate’s responses will have been duplicated via carbon or similar onto a scoring card. Usually, you add up the number of responses (often black circles) that appear inside a circle. Those outside of a circle represent incorrect answers so don’t get counted. Once you’ve added up correct responses, you have your raw score. Slightly different procedures obviously apply for personality assessments and fewer personality assessments provide self-scoring answer sheets due to their scoring complexity. When using self-scoring answer sheets you need to be especially careful to ensure that the candidate presses hard on the answer sheet when completing the test. If they are light-handed their responses may not come through onto the scoring card!
Finally, let’s consider the link between psychometric test scoring and reliability/validity. As you know, the test administrator can have a huge impact upon psychometric test reliability throughout the whole process. At the scoring stage you can affect reliability simply by scoring incorrectly. This might happen because you miss the fact that a candidate crossed out their answer and changed their mind. It may also happen because you try to score fast and just don’t add up correctly. Perhaps you use the scoring key incorrectly or perhaps the scoring is so arduous (often the case for personality assessments) that you simply get lost in the scoring or incorrectly use your calculator!
Ensure therefore that you fully understand how to score the test, use the scoring key as per the publisher’s instructions, score slowly and double check or have someone else double check your scoring. If possible, use computer based scoring or self-scoring answer sheets. Incorrect scoring reduces reliability and of course that means that a valid test can become invalid and a waste of time or money!
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.
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.
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!
PsyAsia International is pleased to announce the next webinar in our series of professional HR webinars. This time we will be discussing the topic of Chinese Personality and performance at work.
Some HR people in Asia believe that culture plays such a significant role in personality that indigenous personality attributes need to be assessed at recruitment/selection. To this end, personality tests have been developed “in Chinese for the Chinese by the Chinese”. A significant question to ask is: Do these tests add any prediction over and above that afforded by mainstream personality tests developed by world renowned experts in the field?
The above questions will be answered through discussion of the trait model of personality and its biological basis. Peer-reviewed and published research conducted by PsyAsia International’s award-winning Psychologist, Dr. Graham Tyler; award-winning Dr. Peter Newcombe of the University of Queensland; and world-renowned Professor Paul Barrett, formerly of the University of Auckland will be presented in an easy to understand format.
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:
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:
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.
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.
Singapore and Hong Kong based award-winning PsyAsia International offers 360 Performance Appraisal via the Saville Consulting Performance Culture Framework. The company has recently set-up a new site dedicated to easy understanding of the 360 appraisal process. It’s easy to set up and the cost is very reasonable. Optional services such as feedback from a psychologist consultant or team building and development services can be added to the package. The online performance appraisal system can be used by any organisation worldwide.
The Saville Consulting Wave is based upon a validation-centric scientific framework known as the Performance and Culture Framework. As part of this framework, Saville Consulting offers the Wave Performance 360 (multi-rater) online assessment of performance at work. Wave Performance 360 online assessment enables a range of relevant individuals to rate a colleague’s performance at work. How an individual perceives themselves and how this compares to other people’s perceptions of them is a powerful feedback tool. 360 assessment enhances self-awareness and provides a great platform for personal development.
Wave 360 provides a unique report where the dual reporting lets the individual being assessed understand on one profile exactly how they were rated and how this benchmarks externally.
The report combines quantitative rating scales with qualitative comment. All raters have the option of contributing narrative text on areas they think the individual does well, could do less of and could improve on. As a further option, Saville Consulting provides a very detailed development report for the individual based on all ratings.
This powerful 360 appraisal can be used on it’s own or in conjunction with Saville Consulting Wave® Styles. When used in combination it can help individuals understand the gaps between their performance and potential as a platform for utilising unused potential and realising critical areas of potential.
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.
