to think most psychometric tests are a pile of toss?

[NomDeOrdinateur]

I'm completing some practice isometric tests, as I've been informed by recruiters that several of the companies I have applied to will use them as a litmus test for whether or not to bother interviewing a candidate. One has literally confirmed to me that if I don't "pass" the test, I won't get an interview regardless of the fact that my CV is excellent.

I'm using some tests from a package recommended by a university careers adviser, which is apparently very good and representative, and they seem to assess two things:

a) whether you ever received coaching for the 11 plus (and can therefore apply exactly the same strategies to more difficult problems);
b) whether you understand some very vague and wooly, not-properly-opposing-but-intended-to-be-dichotomous terms well enough to place yourself on the "desirable" end of the spectrum (e.g. "I work with flair/thoroughness" or "Land/Sky"/"I like to do leisure activities on my own/with other people [but no option for 'with just my partner' which would be my true preference]").

Other examples, not chosen for ridiculousness but just because they have come up while I've been typing this:
"I have enormous respect for people who are prepared to take control of a situation [like Hitler?] (Score 1-5)";
"We should respect the views of others regardless of whether we share them [again, including Hitler?] (Score 1-5)";
"I enjoy influencing others [regardless of whether it is appropriate and ethical?] (Score 1-5)";
"I can accept doing things I don't value as long as I am highly paid [isn't that what jobs are?] (Score -5)";
"It is essential to be open and honest with myself and all other people [two very different qualities with very different consequences IME] (Score 1-5)".

NB - The above examples are all paraphrased in case I'd be infringing something by copying the exact wording, but I have been very careful to render the meaning fairly.

I really believe that my education has made it impossible for me to feel comfortable with any of the possible answers, as the questions just seem too wooly to me. Also, I'm a very independent and insular person but I am nonetheless happy to work as part of a team (and have a great deal of evidence to show that I have been instrumental to the success of team projects, and have developed good working relationships with my co-workers) - surely that won't be reflected if I'm answering questions on leisure activities with "on my own"/"reading"/"privacy" etc...?

So, AIBU to think that recruiters would probably be as likely to pass over excellent candidates by chucking decent-looking CVs away at random as they are by blindly following the scores on most of these tests?

"We should respect the views of others..."

Depends what we mean by respect. Allow them to hold that view, yes.

Have any 'respect' for taking a view that female circumcision is ok, no.

Exactly, Laurie - if the question was "I respect others' right to hold beliefs that I strongly disagree with" (which they may well have meant) then that would be easy to answer, but the actual phrasing suggests holding all beliefs in equally high regard and consideration with no regard for how morally reprehensible/utterly bonkers some of them might be. A 5/5 for the former meaning would be a desirable answer, whereas a 5/5 for the latter meaning could be quite worrying in some professions.

BlueberryHill - the recruiter said that for the verbal and non-verbal reasoning sections you need to score above a certain percentile in order to go through to interview (which is fine but annoying - I'll just need to get some 11+ books as NVR is nothing to do with my qualifications or career path, and I've already got excellent qualifications and a strong CV), but for the personality/values tests they will discount you without an interview if your answers don't fit the desired profile. Which would be fair enough, if the questions weren't so woolly that I'm not even sure what my answers mean when I submit them...

Verbal and NV reasoning tests I can see, but personality tests? My answers to those seem to vary depending upon my mood or whether I consider them in relation to work / life outside work. What the hell is a desired profile?

I have no idea, Blueberry! I asked him and he said it's a way of breaking down your qualities to see how well you would fit with the job and office culture etc, but I pointed out that the personality tests specifically tell you NOT to think about yourself in specific situations like work when you answer them... It seems bizarre to me! Firstly, we all adapt our thinking and behaviour to our context so the idea of a single mode of being is overly simplistic, and secondly, why would they care what somebody is "really" like if they can perform correctly in the working environment?

I did Myers-Briggs and it was very accurate for me

Would never want to use any such test for recruitment though, that idea is bollocks

The 'science' behind these tests is very dodgy. I did a Psychology degree many years ago and part of the course requirement was to take various psychometric test to 'validate' them. You can imagine that after sitting thru a few of these they were not taken seriously. I always tell HR people this when they explain about the tests. I especially like telling them about the lie scales included in the test........They've usually never heard about them. Not worth the paper / hand held their printed on

Oh, I fancy doing some now. I had to do one over 25 years ago with questions like 'I like to always toe the party line'. Well, obviously no-one would say "Yes" to that. My result was I had a tendency to rebel against authority. I still got the job (very conservative company) and 3 months later was threatened with the sack as I didn't fit in with the company. So, not sure what to conclude from that. Still think they're toss though but maybe they can select who is smart enough to appear smart,

x post with Lilka - the Myers Briggs is the most dodgy of the lot. Bit like reading a newspaper astrology prediction. You can take it several times and get a different result each time and don't ask how it was devised. Tests like this get Psychology a bad name in my view

I worked for a company that swore by them. They did the tests on "big" hires as they are quite expensive. I over heard the tester suggest they hire a man, not trust him, keep him for two years or so and they would get excellent results. They did exactly that and ruined his life, poor guy. He left a mid sized family company that loved him and would have seen him into retirement. He joined the company I worked and they basically seduced him, chewed him up and spat him out. I left and never even look at a company that uses those Things since!!

Myers-Briggs is not unreliable provided it is correctly administered.