We are currently investigating the possibility of using psychometric and aptitude tests as part of our recruitment process.

Psychometrics can be used with modest effect to support and develop existing teams and to encourage healthy and empathetic dialogue where challenges to communication exist. Their effect is generally temporary and diminishes over time, even given repeated application.

They should play no role in recruitment. I cannot emphasise this enough.

Aptitude tests (verbal reasoning, presentation skills, numeracy and literacy) may well play a role in selection in the right situation, and in recruiting for teachers they aren't a bad idea but I would strongly discourage an employer from placing excessive weighting on such aptitude tests compared to conventional competency-based selection. At most, aptitude tests should be seen as a form of checks and balances and for illustrating potential areas for support once appointed. They tend to be poorly weighted to account for neurodiversity and favour people who are culturally familiar with testing procedures.

I do think that appropriate psychometric tools can be effectively used as part of a well structured selection process. They of course need to be valid tools and fit for purpose, and used by someone appropriately trained in their assessment. They can offer interesting insights and avenues to explore in a structured interview.

All selection methods (interviews, assessment tests, psychometric tools, group exercises etc) have their flaws and weaknesses which is partly why I believe generally using a variety can give a more balanced view

Generally given the cost and resources necessary to use them properly I would only use them at mid to senior level

It should never be forgotten they are self assessment tools in that the candidate is given their view on themselves.

I haven't seen them used in schools (apart from in Head of Function  / Head Teacher selections) and am not sure what you will get out of them for junior / support staff.

In reply to Keith:

You can use them when looking at people for departmental head etc where you might want to assess someone stepping up into a leadership role for the first time. You would specifically be looking for one that prompted areas/competencies you would want to investigate in the interview (they should never be used for more than that anyway)

As ever, I'd ask what problem you're looking to solve with the introduction of psychometric testing? In the schools where I've worked, I've never felt there was value to be added, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be situations where it could be relevant.

What selection processes do you use at the moment, and why do you feel they aren't working?

Thanks,

Nina

In reply to Nina Waters:

Our current selection process is an interview where the applicant answers questions based around the job description and person specification. They also spend some time in the classroom and we get feedback from the teacher following that. For some staff we also give a written exercise, depending on the role. Members of the SLT came across a resilience test which has started a discussion about using other tests as part of our process (psychometric, aptitude etc). The discussion has also gone into supermarket selection techniques where applicants complete several sets of questions as part of the selection process before progressing to interview stage. The question has been raised about whether we can improve in our process and whether different tests will help with this.

In reply to Amanda Cherry:

Thanks Amanda - I suppose what I'm asking is what's wrong with your current process? Are you finding that you're appointing candidates without the resilience to cope? Or who aren't good teachers? Or who don't fit with the values/ethos of the school?

In my experience, the best indicators of whether a teacher will be a success are in the classroom - seeing how someone interacts with pupils, how they structure and differentiate their lessons, how creative and interesting they can be, and how well they keep a class focused - is far more relevant than how well they might answer any psychometric test I can think of.

Sorry, that's just my experience - but I'd really focus on what the problem is first, so you can work out what the right next step might be.

Good luck.

Nina

In reply to Amanda Cherry:

Are you having new starters regularly leave? Are you capturing data from them that shows that a lack of resilience is a problem?*

The discussion has also gone into supermarket selection techniques where applicants complete several sets of questions as part of the selection process before progressing to interview stage.

Supermarkets typically receive dozens of applications or even hundreds for every vacancy. They use systems to filter the preliminary applications to a manageable level. Are you overwhelmed with candidates that you need to filter them like this?

The question has been raised about whether we can improve in our process and whether different tests will help with this.

What is wrong with your current system (which looks completely sensible to me) that you need to improve it?



*And if so, is it really about the resilience of your candidates? Or is it just that you have an unbearable working environment and you leadership thinks it's easier to blame new starters who leave than to make changes to the culture?

In reply to Robey:

Crossover and similar post to Robey, but I'd also emphasise his final point:

*And if so, is it really about the resilience of your candidates? Or is it just that you have an unbearable working environment and you leadership thinks it's easier to blame new starters who leave than to make changes to the culture?

If the answer to "why is everyone crying and leaving?" is "let's make sure they're resilient on the way in", then I think the problem is elsewhere! Sorry, that's flippant, but the stresses associated with teaching are well-documented, and I think we need to be very careful about how we manage our solutions.

Good luck.

Nina

In reply to Amanda Cherry:

I think in the context of a special school there are tremendous needs for resilience, e.g. children with health needs who are very poorly which comes with responsibility/ even experiencing grief when students pass away young, behaviour issues both physical and mental - it is tough for staff at times. I'm not sure what context your special school works in and what the impact is on staff.

I'm not sure psychometric testing will be valid enough as it would test general resilience, perhaps just exploring the realities at interview stage and checking candidates are comfortable....and provide support during onboarding if its a new environment.

The current process looks good although sometimes having children on the panel could be useful to check the ability to communicate and interact. If the candidate can't do this could lead to lack of resilience....sorry if I am opening up a can of worms! With resilience for mental/ physical behaviour - it is more educational, skills and understanding and how to manage e.g. what to do/ working with families/ carers to create action plans/ own individual support networks/ restraint techniques etc to test for rather than assessing being 'OK with it'.

I still agree with Nina and Robey's responses if this is the context.

In reply to Anna:

Hi all - I came across this thread as I was doing some research into psychometrics and GDPR so wanted to share some insight I’ve found in my research in case it’s helpful.

Under GDPR Health is categorised at special category of data and has additional requirements on it and also individuals have more rights for their health data.

Psychometric data falls under health as it’s quite a broad definition if you look at the testing of GDPR since it came out. Especially the letter from the Article 29 Working group where it defines “health data (or all data pertaining to the health status of a data subject) is a much broader term than the term 'medical’…” including “data about a person's intellectual and emotional capacity (such as IQ)…”

As health data the reasons for using become much stricter and also a candidate or employee has the right to withdraw freely without detriment. See consent, valid consent pages on the ICO website for more information about this and imbalance of power.

I had a fun Friday night down this rabbit hole :)

In reply to Samantha:

Thanks for pursuing that rabbit hole, Samantha. That's really interesting. Although it should also be noted that the relevant letter was written in 2016 before the UK left the EU, and GDPR was incorporated into DPA2018.

I'm not aware of any relevant caselaw or governmental guidance in the UK to suggest that psychometric data would be considered "special category" and, in fact, as the research suggests that a lot of psychometric "data" is situational and testees deliver different results at different times and under different circumstances (heaven knows my IQ is at least a dozen points down by 4pm), I don't think it would stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

It is not without a wry smile that I note that psychometric data is as likely to be considered health data as your astrological forecast.

In reply to Amanda Cherry:

I won't repeat the excellent advice you've already had.

Our local school used psychometric tests for their staff. J

Judging by the comments I got from some of the staff and, much more importantly, some of the pupils, there was  one staff member who was rude, insulting, made derogatory comments, put downs to pupils.   I knew this person quite well and he appeared to never fail an interview, even for roles that he was not particularly suited for and in one case not particularly qualified to do either.

Some years later after he'd left that school I asked them how he managed to pass his interviews in that job and others since. . His comment was quite telling:- "I always gave the answers I knew they wanted and that included the psychometric tests" !