Since 1996, PsyMetrics has been a developer of assessments designed to measure those skills, abilities, competencies and behavioral characteristics critical for elite performance.
Our assessments have been administered to millions of individuals worldwide. Our content has been integrated and sold under private label partnerships by some of the most respected assessment companies in the world.Learn More
"iApplicants has been affiliated with PsyMetrics for over a decade. PsyMetrics’ testing content has proven to be a winner with our clients contributing both to our sales growth and new customer acquisitions.
PsyMetrics’ assessments were invaluable in helping us screen 400+ candidates within a 2 week period. We are very pleased with the quality of the candidates that resulted from the assessment process.
PsyMetrics has been our assessment vendor going on 5 years. Their unique ability to mix and match assessment content based on job requirements has been invaluable in helping us hire better quality candidates across multiple jobs and locations.
Founded on Industrial Psychology principles, we utilize the latest in data analytics to ensure every PsyMetrics test predicts future job performance. Learn More
The question should be, “How can companies afford not to use tests?” The use of tests in business has a great deal of advantages over using the traditional job interview alone or other commonly used selection procedures. When you use tests to evaluate applicants, you are comparing “apples to apples.” Tests ask the same questions of everyone. So you can compare each applicant on exactly the same skill sets, dispositions and behavioral characteristics. The use of tests affords the human resource professional the opportunity to ask a great deal of job-related questions in a relatively short amount of time making tests much more efficient than any other hiring method. Skills tests allow you to test for skills that cannot be measured during the interview. Appropriately developed tests do not ask biased or illegal questions. Tests allow the applicant’s answers to be compared to the responses of hundreds or even thousands of other test takers that have taken the test under the same standardized conditions. And maybe most importantly, professionally developed tests, like the PsyMetrics EPS, have been developed based on scientific research that shows they are, in fact, predictive of future job performance. There are no other selection methods that can make all of these claims. When combined with the job interview, work history, reference checks and other screening methods, tests can significantly increase your ability to identify applicants who will succeed and be top performers within your organization.
Effectively screening potential employees is an organization’s ethical responsibility. An effective pre-employment testing program can go a long way in ensuring a safe, productive and satisfying working environment. Testing is a cost effective, efficient and effective means of identifying conscientious, top performing employees who will contribute to the safety and productivity of your organization.
Three of the most common myths surrounding pre-employment testing are: 1) “tests are illegal and those who use them will get sued,” 2) “pre-employment tests cost too much,” 3) “testing takes up too much time.” Each of these will be addressed below.
Myth #1 – Tests are illegal and those that use them will get sued.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) justifies the use of tests and any other selection procedure as long as they are related to successful job performance. Tests are just another method of gathering employee information in order to make the most educated hiring decision. Look at it as an interview on paper or an online interview (if the test is taken online). Obviously there are certain questions that should not be included in tests intended to be used in the business setting, for example, questions about age, religion, or other private and protected information. But these types of questions should not be used in any hiring method (e.g., interviews, job application). The same state and federal guidelines that apply to interviews, background checks, and so on also apply to tests.
If tests are developed and used properly, they can actually reduce the likelihood that you will get sued. Tests standardize the applicant data collection process. Every applicant is asked the same questions, in the same format, reducing bias and stereotypes. And given that professionally developed and validated tests increase validity over that of the interview, you are likely to hire fewer problematic employees. Hiring less non-compliant employees reduces problems in the workplace that can lead to liability issues such as negligent hiring lawsuits. “Companies that adopt pre-employment integrity tests to screen job applicants can reduce their exposure to negligent hiring claims.” Simply put, companies that hire the best employees are less likely to get sued over companies that hire problem employees. And professionally developed, job-related tests can significantly increase the quality of your hires.
Myth #2 – "Pre-employment testing costs too much."
The costs associated with a bad hire that leads to turnover are significant. When you factor in additional recruitment costs, training costs, management costs, low productivity and poor morale, most HR professionals would agree that these costs would run at least twice that person’s yearly salary.
According to statistics provided from the Saratoga Institute, Kepner Tregoe, Inc. and the Bureau of National Affairs, the average cost of turnover for a 2,000-employee company with an annual turnover rate of 12% (US yearly average) is four million dollars per year!
When you compare testing costs with the very significant costs associated with making a bad hiring decision, it is obvious that the investment made in testing is relatively insignificant.
The EPS offers a low cost solution for increasing the accuracy of your hiring decisions. Investing approximately the cost of lunch in evaluating an applicant today can literally save you thousands tomorrow.
Myth #3 – "Testing takes up too much time."
The EPS is extremely flexible and efficient. You decide how long the testing portion of your selection process will take. You can start with a couple of prescreen scales that can be administered in less than 6 minutes to eliminate those applicants who do not possess the most basic skills or characteristics required of the job. This step can then be followed up with a more comprehensive approach that tests for additional skills or behaviors. You simply choose from our extensive library of tests and custom build your test battery. You can add tests to your battery until you have satisfied the number of competencies you need to assess while staying within any time restraints you might have.
Also available are pre-assembled batteries whose administration times range from 20–45 minutes. These test batteries have been assembled by our staff of Industrial Psychologists based on the job requirements of typical organizational jobs or functions or industry types (e.g., Sales, Service, Retail, Banking, etc.).
EPS consists of cognitive, personality, interests and skills based tests. The personality and interests tests include both attitudinal and behavioral statements. Responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. This item format is extremely efficient, allowing applicants to answer a great deal of questions in a very short amount of time.
The EPS cognitive and skills tests were also designed to be completed in a short amount of time. The cognitive and skills tests include brief questions covering various job-relevant cognitive abilities and skill sets. The answer format is multiple-choice. The tests are concise, focused and valid predictors of performance.
Most PsyMetrics tests are completed within 15-30 minutes.
All EPS tests are designed as stand alone products with the flexibility and available option of being combined into customized test batteries. Combining cognitive/skills tests and personality/interest assessments has been shown to increase validity above and beyond using one or the other.
With its customizability and efficient item format, EPS is ideal for seamless integration into any ATS test delivery platform. This enables companies to incorporate an “all-in-one” approach to their applicant recruiting and hiring process.
The most important aspect of any assessment device is its ability to predict what it is intended to predict, i.e., its validity. As mentioned previously in this manual, the EPS scales were developed based on years of research using the latest techniques to increase efficiency, job-relatedness, applicant comfort level and validity. The test items were written based on extensive interviews with job incumbents, supervisors, managers, job observations, a review of training materials and a review of the psychological and skills testing literature. The original sets of test items were then validated using various validity methods (i.e., criterion-related, construct and self–report). Through extensive item analysis, the most valid and reliable test items were retained and used to create the EPS scales.
The following summarizes the concept of validity and the various validity methods utilized in validating the EPS scales.
A test’s level of effectiveness is directly related to its validity (the degree to which the test measures what it is supposed to measure) and its reliability (how consistent the test is at measuring what it is supposed to measure). The EPS scales have undergone significant research across various job categories utilizing several validation strategies. The results of all the research conclude that the tests within EPS are valid predictors of critical aspects of job performance. The three validation methods used to establish the validity of the EPS are summarized below.
The concurrent, criterion-related validation method requires that the test be administered to current employees. Performance data is then gathered on those employees. If the test were a valid predictor of job performance, one would expect a statistically significant correlation between test scores and the performance data collected. In other words, those employees who score high on the test are the same employees who demonstrate high levels of performance. Those employees who do poorly on the test would likely be those who demonstrate poor performance.
The correlations obtained throughout all of the criterion-related validity studies conducted using the EPS tests indicate that the tests are valid predictors of job performance.
In addition to the concurrent validation strategy described above, construct validation studies have been performed for many of the EPS scales. This validation strategy attempts to demonstrate the degree to which the instrument in question actually measures the psychological construct it is intended to measure. This approach generally involves administering the test in question along with another well-researched and established instrument that measures the same construct. If the two instruments measure the same construct, one would expect to find a significant correlation between the two. From the construct validation studies conducted using the EPS scales, we can conclude that the EPS scales measure the construct they were designed to measure and therefore are construct valid.
An additional strategy utilized to establish the validity of the EPS scales was to compare test scores to anonymous self-reports. Some tests measure behaviors that are not always observable yet could have a serious negative impact to your organization; for example stealing or illegal drug use. The anonymous self-report validation strategy makes it possible to collect past behavior information (e.g., stealing history, illegal drug use frequency) in a non-threatening manner. Test scores are then compared to the self-report ratings to determine the tests ability to identify those counterproductive behaviors. The results of the validation studies using the self-report data collection method offer strong support for the validity of the EPS scales intended to predict counterproductive workplace behaviors.