Practitioner Guidelines for Psychometric Testing

A Strategy for the Interpretation of Psychometric Evidence – The PMI Process

Part of the skill of being a qualified test user, and especially the responsibility of using personality and motivation questionnaires, and other measures of judgement and style, is to be able to accurately synthesise the results. This involves being able to draw them together cogently and perceptively, in such a way that they:

are in general accord with the test takers perception of themselves,
address the questions asked by the purpose of the assessment.
are in an understandable format for significant and interested other stakeholders who wish to incorporate the findings into a more holistic way of understanding the person.

A very efficient way of doing this is through PMI Analysis*. An example of this is provided on the following page. This has been constructed from psychometric evidence obtained from the completion of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire, Motivation Questionnaire, Leadership Judgement Indicator. SHL’s Advanced Managerial Test of Numerical Analysis and the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. The person had received a full debriefing preceded by predicted OPQ profiling (see separate Appendix).

Steps for creating the PMI –

Create psychometrically based person specification for the job from the following:
a) Job Requirement Exercise (JRE) – see separate Appendix.

b) The HR Person Specification for the job and whatever other job analysis data is available. Map those competencies onto the validity information provided in the test manuals (e.g. at the time of writing, data from Table 1, Chapter 12, OPQ 32 Manual which gives correlations between competency ratings and OPQ scores).

c) Job population mean and standard deviation scores (e.g. other senior financial professionals)

d) Generic mean and standard deviation scores for others operating at the most senior levels in similar organisational environments.
Assess the person for the purpose intended** and debrief them appropriately.
Plot candidate’s scores against the psychometrically based person specification for the job and highlight areas of congruence and discrepancies.
Conduct the PMI analysis:

P: Plus points - areas of congruence with psychometrically based person specification.
M: Minus points - areas of discrepancy from important/ critical factors.
I: Interesting points - areas of congruence or discrepancy from non-essential or useful characteristics which may hold future relevance.

EXAMPLE PMI Analysis

Joseph Soap Position Applied For: Finance Director
PLUS POINTS Joseph achieved an unusually strong result on the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, at the 99.6th percentile against a recently normed sample of senior managers. He is clearly someone of unusually high calibre, able to put personal opinion on one side and deal objectively with complex written information. He scored at the 99.4th percentile on the advanced test of numerical analysis. This is again an unusually strong score, at a good PLC FD level of competence. Unsurprisingly, therefore, he is very data rational in decision making preferring to base decisions on facts/ figures rather than use intuition or gut feel. Highly conscientious and vigorous. He will undoubtedly deliver, having a strong work ethic, relishing plenty to do with a real thirst for stretching targets. He is action orientated and personally motivated, needing to succeed to maintain self-esteem. Enjoys power and authority. Wants broad scope for influence and would be demotivated without it. Has strong need for achievement and growth (which should be within his own professional field rather than in a broader managerial context). He is an emotionally stable person – calm, tough-minded, optimistic and emotionally controlled. Stress resilient. His prime motivator is Commercial Outlook (see Motivation Questionnaire). This is inextricably linked with his need for achievement.	MINUS POINTS Joseph feels uncomfortable selling ideas, negotiating and persuading others to his point of view. He is also not particularly socially confident, which will undermine his ability to negotiate. He could be too consensual in decision making, equalising power when this is unnecessary. He may not spot opportunities for Directive leadership when the situation warrants it. No more strategically orientated than the next manager, given his OPQ scores on Evaluative, Conceptual and Forward Thinking. These attributes are certainly not as strong as other senior professionals within Finance. A worst case scenario is that he could get rather stuck in a rut and become resistant to change.
INTERESTING POINTS Joseph was most proficient on the Leadership Judgement Indicator in those styles where power is equalised or released. In leadership he is prepared to take control and adopt a Consultative approach, even if Directive leadership is not on his personal ‘radar screen’. Joseph is not a change agent. He is better in a situation that requires consolidation and maintenance, where well established frameworks are in place. He favours clarity, structure and rigour over creativity and change, with an adherence to deadlines, following rules and well established methods. In terms of his sociability he is an introvert, relatively uncomfortable in the limelight. He is below the senior financial comparison group in his general reserve and feelings of discomfort in new or formal situations.
Michael Lock Cert Ed, BA(Hons), MA, MSc, C Psychol, AFBPsS Chartered Occupational Psychologist Date: 20th April 2006

* An Edward de Bono thinking skills tool
** It is not permissible to use psychometric information if the purpose under which it was obtained differs from that for which it is now being used without the express permission of the test taker. Neither is it permissible to use psychometric information about the person if it is more than two years old or significant development opportunities have occurred in the meantime.