Perspectives on Pre-employment Testing

As HR professionals and hiring managers, we are relentlessly driven to classify people, grouping a new person we meet with people we already know so we can draw conclusions and predict behaviors. It is only human. Particularly in these data-driven, metrics-happy times, we long to be scientific and "correct" in our hiring decisions. Oftentimes, we use pre-employment testing and expect it to deliver that certainty we crave.

But this is misplaced hope. A human being is a complex conglomerate that defies definition, and grappling with this is both a downside of our jobs, since it leaves uncomfortable room for error, and an upside (would we really want a job that leaves no room for judgment?).

Recognizing the limitations of pre-employment assessments doesn't mean we throw them to the curb. It does means we need to see them for the imperfect input they are, just like the other measures we use in our quest to reveal truth and forecast outcomes.

The Society for Human Resource Management estimates that about 22 percent of employers use assessment tools in the hiring process. Recent growth in the $500M assessment industry is explosive, at 10 percent a year. Some pre-employment tests are skills-based, and some seek to identify personality characteristics, sociability, productivity, problem-solving logic, motivation, integrity or IQ. Others seek to isolate the candidate's greatest strengths. Many assessments measure factors like openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. These are compared against the job profile and help determine culture fit.

To pass legal muster and be the most fruitful, test results should tie in with the job description and profile of an ideal candidate. We suggest a few basic "dos and don'ts:

• Be sure the test you purchase passes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rules on disparate impact. Validation should be part of the contract with the test purveyor, but compliance is ultimately the employer's responsibility.

• Further, be sure the validation link between the test and the job requirements for your particular opening is solid.

• Avoid using testing as a hiring tool. Use tests either to narrow the field after the first or second round of interviews, to drive interview questions for finalists, or to validate interviewers' conclusions before an offer is extended.

• When in doubt about validity and relevance, utilize skills tests to the extent that the job warrants. Measuring math and verbal skills or software proficiency, for example, are relatively straightforward and easily linked to job requirements.

• Give job simulations their due. Tests like inbox simulations or "what would you do?" scenarios have many benefits, including testing leadership and administrative savvy, and providing insight into the cultural fit.

Before you rely too heavily on test results, remember that well-executed reference checks still speak volumes! The law has made it treacherous for employers to give "bad" references, and just finding your way to the candidate's former manager can be a herculean task. But dig away at that curious story that needs to be flushed out. Only then can you conclude if it was an isolated, explainable event or whether there are, perhaps, spots on this leopard that aren't about to change.

Validation scores for popular pre-employment tests, from skills to personality inventories, are rising as development firms continue to expand their research and hone their instruments. With appropriate selection of tests, proper timing, and a balanced perspective, comes the gratification of knowing the superstar candidate really did turn out to be a superstar employee!