Addressing scepticism about assessments. Explaining Clevry’s validity and limits. Building trust with hiring managers.
Addressing scepticism surrounding psychometric assessment platforms is essential to ensure all parties are onboard. People are often sceptical about psychometrics because they perceive them as abstract or academic, or that they replace important judgement-making. But Psychometrics don’t replace judgment – they standardise a part of the process so that we can reduce bias and make better predictions about performance.
Therefore, it’s important to reframe psychometrics as ‘business tools’ that aim to reduce risk and make decisions more consistent. A good place to start is by addressing the statistical properties that make psychometrics reliable. These are called Validity and Reliability. Put simply, Validity is about accuracy, and Reliability is about consistency.
Moreover, the standardised nature of Psychometric assessment seeks to minimise interviewer bias, helps comply with equal-opportunity regulations, and supports fair, defendable hiring decisions. Crucially, this helps to ensure that everyone gets the same opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities.
Key Outcomes of the use of Psychometrics in recruitment:
- Improvement in quality of hire
- Reduction in turnover
- Increased prediction of performance
- Enhanced internal mobility outcomes
Don’t just believe us – look at the evidence!
- Peer-reviewed research
- Use of large norm groups
- Compliance with standards (e.g., EFPA, APA, BPS)
- Ongoing validation studies
- Qualification requirements for administrators
These factors are what set psychometrics aside from “pop psychology”. Instead, they are governed by rigorous standards set by professional accrediting bodies.
Psychometrics complement human judgement, they don’t replace it.
The bottom line is that ultimately, when designed and administered properly, good psychometric assessments and ability tests help provide organisations more objective data points, which can then be used to reduce subjective variability between hiring managers and interviewers.
When the findings are used well they should enhance interviews, not substitute them. And final decisions, crucially, still remain human-led.
