It's not that unusual to have some sort of personality fit test before reviewing CVs or asking candidates to complete application forms because both of those cost a lot of money to review and it's a fairly quick and low cost way of narrowing down a pool of candidates.
Some organisations see the person specification (what sort behaviours, temperament etc) as just as important as more tangible skills; they care not just about what you do, but the way you do it.
However, just because someone doesn't get through a test like that doesn't mean they have failed, but more that you are not suitable for that particular organisation in that specific role. For example, the same value can be embodied differently depending on status and these tests should be pitched for the role/band/level being applied for. Alan Sugar might have behaviours that make him a great CEO but a terrible, terrible front line customer service operative.
So a good example of this would be something like how someone works with others in a team. You would want somebody who is looking to take on a leadership role to display leadership skills. But the same behaviours of good leadership (eg. giving clear direction, taking initiative, leading and motivating others, making tough decisions when necessary, using judgement to act outside of the normal rules and norms where necessary) could potentially be perceived as being arrogant, bossy and showing a lack of respect for authority in a role where people are expected to work in a very autocratic environment and stick closely to rules.
Hopefully that makes some sort of sense. I am being shouted at by a toddler so it's hard to concentrate(!)