Practitioner reactions to work‐related psychological tests

Personality Assessment for Employee Development: Ivory Tower or Real World?

The acceptance and popularity of personality assessments in organizational contexts has grown enormously over the last 40 years. Although these are used across many applications, such as executive coaching, team building, and hiring and promotion decisions, the focus of most published research on the use of personality assessments at work is biased toward assessment for employee selection. Reviews have therefore tended to use criteria that are appropriate for selection, neglecting the additional and different criteria that are important in relation to employee development. An illustration of the often-discussed scientist-practitioner divide is that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the most widely known and used personality assessment in organizations, despite harsh criticism by the academic community. This article reviews this debate, and draws implications for the appropriate choice of personality assessments for use in individual and team development, and a new direction for scientific research.

Personality testing and workplace training

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore how and why personality tests are used in workplace training. This research paper is guided by three research questions that inquire about the role of external and internal stakeholders, the value of psychometric and practical considerations in test selection, and the purpose of personality test use in workplace training.

Design/methodology/approach

This research paper uses multiple-case study analysis. Interviews, test reports, product flyers and email correspondence were collected and analyzed from publishers, associations, psychologists and human resource development (HRD) practitioners in Germany, the UK and The Netherlands between 2012 and 2016.

Findings

Themes emerge around industry tensions among practitioners and professional associations, psychologists and non-psychologists. Ease of use is a more important factor than psychometrics in the decision-making process. Also, practitioners welcome publishers that offer free coaching support. In the process of using tests for development rather than assessment, re-labeling takes place when practitioners and publishers use positive terms for personality tests as tools for personal stocktaking and development.

Research limitations/implications

Despite extensive data collection and analysis efforts, this study is limited by its focus on a relatively small number of country cases and stakeholders per case.

Practical implications

By combining scientific evidence with practical application, stakeholders can take first steps toward more evidence-based HRD practice around personality testing in workplace training.

Originality/value

Little academic literature exists on the use of personality testing in workplace training. Without a clear understanding of the use of personality testing outside personnel selection, the current practice of personality tests for developmental purposes could raise ethical concerns about the rights and responsibilities of test takers.

Candidates' integration of individual psychological assessment feedback

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to empirically verify a theoretical model of candidates' feedback integration in the context of individual psychological assessment (IPA).

Design/methodology/approach

– Structural equation modeling analyses were conducted in a two-wave longitudinal study. A total of 97 candidates completed questionnaires immediately after their feedback session as well as three months later.

Findings

– Results indicate that candidates' motivational intention to act on IPA feedback is a pivotal variable linking feedback perceptions and post-feedback behaviors. Source credibility, assessment face validity, as well as perception that the feedback helped increase candidate's awareness were related to motivational intention. Conversely, feedback acceptance was not related to candidates' motivation to act on feedback and post-feedback behaviors.

Research limitations/implications

– Because the authors relied on self-report questionnaires, future studies would benefit from including externally assessed behavioral outcomes. Future research efforts should continue distinguishing candidates' acceptance and awareness based on their distinctive contributions in the feedback integration process.

Practical implications

– The results indicate that motivation created during the feedback session is a stronger predictor of day-to-day behavioral changes than it is of involvement in specific developmental activities.

Originality/value

– This research fills a gap in IPA literature by highlighting some IPA benefits and the processes involved in increasing feedback value for the participant.