If you've ever hired someone then you’ve found yourself in a situation where you're faced with a decision. You've narrowed the field down to a select few candidates and you're staring at their resumes wondering "How do I know who is going to be the best fit for the role?"
The pressure to find a good employee can be stressful and unpleasant to say the least. Especially when you consider that the statistics indicate that you have about a 50/50 shot at hiring someone who will still be there in 18 months.
Our assessments, the Predictor Profiles, are designed to help tip the scales heavily in your favour. These are not personality tests, they are accurate predictors of behaviour. They consist of over 350 questions measuring 40 different traits for each individual, based on the way they answered the questions.
You then get five pages worth of graphically displayed data that you can use to support your hiring decisions. Most notable is the graph indicating your candidate’s attitude and integrity traits. If you’ve ever wished for a way to predict how someone will perform after their 3 month honeymoon period is over, this is the best way to do it.
There are four different categories of assessments, and a variety of assessments in each category. The most important, the backbone of the work we do, are the aptitude and ability tests. We always recommend that each candidate do one aptitude assessment, and one ability test.
We are able to work one on one with each client to see if other assessments are necessary depending on the role they’re recruiting for. See below for more information on each type of assessment, or click here to learn more about our full range of done-for-you recruiting services for those who don’t have the time to do their own recruiting.
The aptitude assessments will provide information on what a candidate's natural tendencies are; what they are interested in doing and willing to do. There are two aptitude..Read more
There are two different ability tests, the sales ability and the IC (Individual Contributor) ability. The sales ability test is recommended for any sales related role as..Read more
We have three types of skills assessments we can use in addition to the aptitude and ability tests to get further clarity on a candidate's specific skills..Read more
Supervision Test will assess how connected or separated a person is, the extent to which they will delegate or assume responsibility, and their level of decision-making ability.Read more
How do we know they’re accurate?
This is where we get in to the detail of how these assessments were developed and how we know they’re accurate. Not everyone is interested in the long detailed history of the assessments so if you’ve read through all of the information above and are still with us, awesome! We’re happy to get into the nitty gritty and give you the stats and specs.
The assessments were developed over a 40 year period. There are complex calculations that determine which questions impact which traits, and by how much. We refer to this as how much weight a question has toward a trait.
Prior to 2008 a hindsight method of validation and calibration was used for the assessments. What that means is that candidates would take the assessments and the companies who hired them would provide feedback. They’d give information on how the candidate behaved in reality.
100% of the pool of applicants that there was reliable feedback on would then be used to calibrate the way the assessments were marked (the weight of each question on each trait). This resulted in 97% accuracy levels for that pool of applicants using the hindsight method, however predicting future applicants behaviour wasn’t nearly as accurate (60% accuracy).
Then in 2008 there was a switch and the double blind method of research was implemented. Rather than calibrate the assessments using all of the applicants that there was reliable data on, 70% of them were randomly selected.
The assessments were calibrated using the information on that 70%, and then that calibration was tested on 15% of the remaining applicants to see if it accurately predicted their behavior. Once a good result was achieved with the first 15%, the same was done with the remaining 15%.
Using this method, the way the assessments were marked was fine-tuned to the point where they can now predict behavior with around a 90% accuracy rate.