People often ask us how to use psychometric assessment tools correctly and ethically, our Director of Leadership & Change, Jenna Pilley explores this.
The purpose of any recruitment process is to predict, as accurately as possible, how successful a candidate is likely to be in a particular role. So which selection methods give us the best chance of doing that?
A CV tells us what someone has done. An interview explores how they have done it and the judgement behind their decisions. References provide independent validation of that evidence. Case studies and presentations show how candidates apply their experience to real-world challenges.
Together, these methods build a strong picture of a candidate’s experience and capability. What they don’t always reveal is how someone is likely to think, fit into the culture, respond under pressure or approach their workday to day.
Psychometric assessment provides objective evidence that goes below the surface, helping to validate or challenge the findings and impressions formed through the recruitment process.
Each method contributes something different. Together, they provide a richer, more complete picture of how someone is likely to perform in the role.
Case Study: Getting below the surface
One client asked us to assess the three candidates they had shortlisted. Before the assessments took place, their preferred candidate withdrew. The hiring panel debated whether to invite the fourth-ranked candidate back into the process after a particularly poor interview.
The psychometric assessment told a different story of their potential. The candidate demonstrated strong leadership potential and a profile well aligned to the role. The panel conducted a second interview focused on exploring the areas highlighted by the assessment and ultimately the candidate was offered the role.
The lesson: not everyone interviews well and you need different approaches to gather necessary information.
The right psychometric assessment tool matters
Every candidate deserves a fair chance to do their best.
The assessment should be scientifically robust, designed for occupational use and appropriate for the role you’re recruiting. In other words, it should measure what it is intended to measure and do so consistently. For organisations hiring across different countries, it should also be globally normed, available in multiple languages and validated for use across different demographics.
But selecting the right assessment is only part of the equation.
Psychometric assessments should only be interpreted by an appropriately trained and accredited practitioner. Like any professional tool, they require expertise to ensure the findings are understood accurately, used ethically and interpreted in the context of the role.
A qualified practitioner does far more than explain a report. They verify the results, integrate them with interview evidence and recognise that people are more complex than a report. They understand what the assessment can and can’t tell you, identify where further exploration is needed, and make reasonable adjustments for candidates where appropriate to ensure every applicant has the opportunity to perform at their best.
Case Study: The Cost of Getting It Wrong
In my training, someone shared a story that has stuck with me throughout my career and it is a great example of how NOT to use assessments.
A case was shared about a child who was experiencing learning difficulties at school. To better understand their needs, the school arranged for a learning ability assessment.
The results suggested the child had significantly lower cognitive ability than others, and it was recommended that they transfer to a school better equipped to support their learning.
Turns out, the assessment had been administered in English, but the child did not speak fluent English.
The assessment hadn’t measured learning ability. It had measured the child’s ability to understand the language in which the assessment was delivered.
The Lesson: when assessment results can influence someone’s career or life, there is an ethical responsibility to use them carefully. Misinterpreting a report or relying on untrained staff to draw conclusions can lead to poor hiring decisions, unfair outcomes and unnecessary bias.
At Oxford HR, we believe psychometric assessment should inform recruitment decisions, not make them. We use scientifically robust assessment tools, selected for the role and context, and every assessment is interpreted by a psychologically trained and accredited practitioner. By combining assessment findings with the wider recruitment evidence, we provide balanced, evidence-based insight that helps hiring panels make confident decisions while ensuring every candidate is treated fairly, ethically and consistently.’
