Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just to demonstrate How about I market a new test to employers designed to replace the current background checks and elimate the possiblity of hiring a criminal:
Just make all candidates anwser the following questions:
agree/disagree
It is ok to steal
it is ok to rape
it is ok to assualt people
it is ok to murder
Just to demonstrate How about I market a new test to employers designed to replace the current background checks and elimate the possiblity of hiring a criminal:
Just make all candidates anwser the following questions:
agree/disagree
It is ok to steal
it is ok to rape
it is ok to assualt people
it is ok to murder
Just to demonstrate How about I market a new test to employers designed to replace the current background checks and elimate the possiblity of hiring a criminal:
Just make all candidates anwser the following questions:
agree/disagree
It is ok to steal
it is ok to rape
it is ok to assualt people
it is ok to murder
These assessments should be for noone they are total junk science written by some botttom tier unemployed psychology majors and marketed to desperate employers as the cure for bad hires. The only thing these tests measure is whehter or not the candidate is smart enough or well prepared enough to decode what the employer wants to hear.
Not that I agree with you, but intelligence is the best predictor of work performance, so even if it does what you say it does it does predict performance and therefore is useful.
Table 3 shows a validity coefficient range of .31-.73, now a .73....that's approaching a reliability estimate.
Also, I love your excellent use of ad hominem's it really adds to the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
Just to demonstrate How about I market a new test to employers designed to replace the current background checks and elimate the possiblity of hiring a criminal:
Just make all candidates anwser the following questions:
agree/disagree
It is ok to steal
it is ok to rape
it is ok to assualt people
it is ok to murder
I should really patent this I'll make millions.
so just to play out your example...who would answer agree to any of those? Really?
Instead, why don't you just draw names from a hat?
Last edited by mizzourah2006; 06-03-2013 at 01:47 PM..
so just to play out your example...who would answer agree to any of those? Really?
Instead, why don't you just draw names from a hat?
that's his point!
who would answer "agree" to "it is sometimes justified to steal from your employer", an actual question i have seen on probably every employer personality/psychological test i've ever taken?
people just fill out what they think their employer wants to hear on those tests. and the scoring system rewards that, too. having flaws doesn't fly.
who would answer "agree" to "it is sometimes justified to steal from your employer", an actual question i have seen on probably every employer personality/psychological test i've ever taken?
people just fill out what they think their employer wants to hear on those tests. and the scoring system rewards that, too. having flaws doesn't fly.
I haven't seen anything like that since about 2005. The Orion assessment is the only one I have ever seen used like that and I haven't seen that in almost 10 years. I guess some companies may still use it, but I agree with you it is a terrible assessment that promotes falsification.
I have also seen other people use personality assessments designed for abnormal psychology, but again the last time I saw that was in 2003ish.
Anytime there is money to be made there will be vendors trying to make money.
Similarly, look at the supplement market. All kinds of junk is in the market. Buyer beware (towards the employer, not the applicant).
What I'm finding at the moment is too many employers are looking for micro specific skill sets and are unable to judge the general capability of someone. They are unable to determine that you could easily learn their minor requirements and only after a few weeks to a month of ramp up you could be better then someone who had a lifetime of experience.
Not that I agree with you, but intelligence is the best predictor of work performance, so even if it does what you say it does it does predict performance and therefore is useful.
The article talks about the importance of general mental ability ie inteligence and its positive correlation to occupational success. The article supports what I have pointed for quite some time that personality concerns except for concientiousness as pointed out in the article has an overinflated emphasis compared to inteligence and competence.
Quote:
As discussed in the section Personalityand Job Performance, certain personality traits are also predictive of occupational level, but the magnitude of the relationshipsis considerably smaller, with the possible exception of one personality trait (conscientiousness).
Many people may also believe that personality is more important than GMA in determining ultimate occupational level. However, research supports the conclusion that personality is less important than GMA inboth areas.
In short it is important to not be a rude sociopath but otherwise competence is more important than personality.
The 2 week firing or quitting period is a reason for these situations. The long term solution should be mandated 1-3 year work contracts (worker can't leave at will, but also can't get fired when the company has a few bad months). This would take unions a bit out of the equation, but also would make the companies better planning employers. They would train folks and that training would amortize for them. While the employee would have a sense that for a certain period of time he/she would be having a job with something resembling a career. Shoddy companies with shoddy finances would quickly go under because they would not find qualified workers by just waving a bigger check. Job descriptions would become less urgent and less micromanaged, because the empty position would be described a year or more ahead.
who would answer "agree" to "it is sometimes justified to steal from your employer", an actual question i have seen on probably every employer personality/psychological test i've ever taken?
people just fill out what they think their employer wants to hear on those tests. and the scoring system rewards that, too. having flaws doesn't fly.
those psychological questions are not like this. You will see a lot of people who tried to answer what they think the employers want got very low score.
1. I work under a great deal of tension T/F
2. I have diarrhea once a month or more T/F
3. I had never worked under any tension. T/F
Question 1 and 3 are the same. it just asked differently. If you see people have both T or both F on 1 and 3, they are mostly likely going to fail the test.
They will ask the same questions many time, but just worded differently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
