Jim Barrett - Ultimate Aptitude Tests: Assess and Develop Your Potential with Numerical, Verbal and Abstract Tests

Obviously, if a test is not predictive there is little point in using it. When and why are aptitude tests used? It is becoming routine for organizations to use tests to select externally as well as internally. Why internally, when you might suppose that a persons abilities and characteristics are already well known? Here are some of the advantages: to create awareness of further potential for development in the persons present job; as a means of assessing suitability for alternative functional opportunities within the same organization; in competition with external applicants, to deliberately test the market, that is, to ensure that the quality of internal staff is keeping pace with what is happening in other, possibly rival, organizations; as a way of validating training programmes; for purposes of career guidance and counselling. Why are aptitude tests useful? Aptitude tests are just like any other tools that can increase efficiency and productivity. There is substantial risk attached to selecting or developing people who turn out to be unsuitable, and the financial costs attached to wrong decisions about employment can be considerable. Testing enables many of the aims of organizations that, ultimately, are to do with getting the best results from their people, for example: to obtain the most competent students or staff and to develop that competence in order to make fullest use of each persons contribution; to reduce the risk of people leaving, since it makes sense to develop staff, where possible, if they have talents that can be extended; to be proactive in discovering potential in staff who may not be aware of it themselves; to develop relevant training programmes, either because the tests check on the effectiveness of training or because they help to make sure that training is directed at those most likely to benefit from it; to obtain increased staff satisfaction as the result of using tests, since they are not used to judge performance in the present job, but to reveal possible opportunities.

So, provided aptitude tests are used properly there is nothing to lose, but everything to gain by the use of tests. Anything that will decrease costs and increase the probability of success will be taken seriously by an organization. This has led many organizations to investigate numerous methods, including graphology and astrology, but it is only the psychometric test method that can be shown to be consistently accurate, going beyond guesswork or gazing into a crystal ball! How accurate are the tests? Predictive validity simply asks whether any kind of test, assertion or forecast is accurate. A ruler is a common measure of scale; a ruler measures distances of height, length or width. In the case of aptitude tests, the type of ruler used is a scale to measure validity . The scale of validity is said to be zero if a forecast is correct only 50 per cent of the time.

This is equivalent to tossing a coin and obtaining heads or tails. If you could predict accurately every time the coin was tossed whether it would land heads or tails, then you would be predicting with perfect accuracy. In this case the validity would be 100 per cent. Any test or forecast that is better than chance may be useful. That is why we ask the advice of people we presume to be wise; as they have done it before we hope they will increase our chances of making a good choice. The trouble with using a wise person is, of course, that what they say is not scientific, whatever skill they have being limited to their own experience.

It is very difficult indeed to obtain a perfect prediction, though in some sciences and industries we are shocked when we learn that predictions are imperfect. For example, a prediction that an aircraft will not crash is very close to 100 per cent. Aircraft safety needs to be an almost perfect prediction as we would probably not ride in an aircraft if we thought that it had any chance of crashing. In fact, predictive validity in this area is so high that most of us can put it out of our mind. Yet, unfortunately, crashes occur, reminding us that we do have to live with less than perfect prediction in this world. Predicting human performance is extremely complicated, much more difficult than predicting what will happen to machines.

This is why predictions based upon tests, even those that are well researched, commonly fall well short of a perfect 100 per cent. This may be for two reasons: 1) there may be circumstances related to the test itself, including its administration or interpretation that undermine its predictive value; 2) there may be circumstances around the person, or subject, who has taken the test that alter the chance of the test being predictive, such as altered social or emotional circumstances. Among selection devices, graphology, astrology and similar methods are no better than chance. Although individuals who claim to have special insight or powers of divination have been employed by organizations to help make selection of staff, their success has probably depended more on their intuition as an interviewer than any valid method in their prognostications. In contrast, aptitude tests are: an efficient way of collecting information; objective, as the information is difficult to obtain by any other method; for example, where an interview question might be How good is your maths?, a test score can say precisely how good a person is; comparative: individuals can be compared directly with a relevant group; a better way of predicting success or satisfaction at various jobs than other selection devices. What do the tests measure? The psychometric tests used in this book have a number of advantages.

They give an indication of abstract and practical mental capacity in six significant areas. They are varied enough to give an indication of potential as well as present attainment. As they have been standardized on the same population it is possible to obtain an estimate of how much better, or worse, you may be on one test as opposed to another. It is obvious that people do have aptitudes that lead them to become better in one area of study or area of work than others. No other explanation fits our observation of the range and diversity of talent people have and why, in our own case, we know we have strengths and weaknesses. Most people are aware of their strengths and weaknesses, but often over- or underestimate themselves.

Sometimes they have never had cause to use a particular talent and thus have never become aware that it lies dormant in them. Organizations may also use tests to establish the presence of characteristics they think are important because they distrust conventional examination results or do not think that those results are appropriate for various reasons. It is worth remembering that tests of one kind or another are being used all the time, as we constantly judge people against our experience. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we dont. Tests should help us to get it right more often, though nothing can ever be asserted with complete finality. What it is possible to do with psychometric tests is to assert a probability, for example the probability that a particular event will happen is less than one in a hundred or one in a thousand, and so on.