How do you use assessment tools and tests to evaluate candidates objectively?

Objective evaluation is key in hiring, no matter the industry. In my experience, using role-specific scenario-based assessments has been highly effective. For instance, for a chef position, we might present a scenario involving managing a busy kitchen with limited resources. This approach helps gauge not just technical skills but also critical thinking and adaptability, which are vital in the fast-paced restaurant environment.

Using assessment tools to evaluate candidates during an interview: 1.Skills Tests: Assess specific technical or job-related skills. 2.Personality Assessments: Gauge cultural fit and interpersonal dynamics. 3.Behavioral Questions: Use situational questions to evaluate problem-solving and decision-making. 4.Cognitive Ability Tests: Measure critical thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving capabilities. 5.Work Samples: Review candidates' past work or have them complete a relevant task. These tools help in making a well-rounded evaluation of the candidate's suitability for the role.

Most of the online platforms are good and they do ask different questions to detect candidate ability in different tasks. But in my experience, I just want to share the basic point that is none of the online platform do measure the human skills of an employee and his capabilities at work. The best way I always prefer is provision of real time environment to the candidate and surely you will find best fit for your organization.

In my own interview experience, I have used assessment tools like Pymetrics, especially for consulting and banking interviews. It mainly tests logic and quant experience in an unbiased way.

Establishing a pay structure aligned with your company’s pay philosophy ensures internal equity and consistency. Using job evaluation, market pricing, or point factor helps set fair salary ranges. Regular benchmarking keeps your structure competitive and compliant with industry standards.

While I agree that assessment tools aim to, and can reduce bias in the hiring process, I believe that as recruiters we have to be conscious of the fact that there is still a risk of inherent biases in the design and administration of tests. Factors such as cultural or language bias, or the exclusion of certain groups from the norming sample, can unintentionally disadvantage certain candidates and continue to perpetuate inequality.

Using a structured assessment tests helps assess candidates objectively and on consistent criteria for comparison, it also mitigate risk of unfairness, and biasness during evaluation

PROs: Unbiased assessments of the candidates CONs: Some candiates are not good "test takers" so you are missing out on a part of the talent pool that will WOW you in a live interview.

I recommend: - Leveraging assessment tools to reduce hiring bias and ensure objective candidate evaluation. - Focusing on candidates' potential rather than just experience, enhancing the quality of hires. - Using assessments to filter out candidates who don't meet minimum requirements, avoiding costly hiring mistakes. - Streamlining the process, saving time and resources with actionable insights for better decision-making.

I agree that assessment tools can be beneficial and save time during the interview process but it is important to be selective and choose the right tool. In addition, decide on the “weight” that the assessment will have in making your final decision to proceed. And always, always, always do the assessment during the same step in every interview process for each position. If you always do the assessment after interview 1 then don’t change that process because someone is out of office that week. Keep your hiring process and assessment process the same so you can be as objective as possible throughout.

Some best practices are to consider: choose assessment tools that have been validated for reliability, validity and authenticity. Provide training to recruiters and assessors on to access the assessment tools effectively. Ensure that assessment tools are accessible to all candidates, including those with disabilities. Minimize bias and discrimination in assessment processes by using validated assessments, standardized scoring criteria, and structured evaluation methods. Analyse assessment data, candidate performance, and hiring outcomes to identify areas for improvement and optimize selection criteria.

Something I recommend is to make the directions of the assessment very clear to the candidate along with the next steps prior to starting. Put instructions with how many questions they will be answering, what type of answer they will be providing (i.e. multiple choice, verbal, or written response), and how many times they are able to attempt a response. I also suggest providing a contact email or phone number to reach out to if there are technical errors with the assessment! This gives candidates a sense of awareness, of what to expect, and provides a better overall interviewing experience.

My recommendation is to use a mix of live interviews plus assessment tools/tests. This way you can hit multiple areas and allow different types of talent to enter your pipeline.

Make the test small enough to complete in a reasonable amount of time. Have clear criteria and rating scale for results that are not ambiguous to ensure fairness. Pay the candidate for the time to take the assessment to show respect for the time invested. Only test the candidates you are ready to make an offer to.

We have moved away from that model. All our candidates already come with hours of interviews and confirmed validations. Employers simply need to apply filters based on their criteria to gain access to hours of interviews and analytics for each candidate. As I mentioned, we're changing the market.

In my experience, assessment tools should be considered valuable data points in the hiring process, but they should NOT be the sole basis for making a final decision. While assessments can give you valuable insights, these tools have limitations, including potential biases, subjectivity, and an incomplete view of candidates. A well-rounded evaluation approach that considers skills, experience, cultural fit, and potential is important. This ensures a more comprehensive and fair assessment of candidates, leading to better hiring decisions overall ??

CONs: You miss out on the talent that might get flustered during an online test/tool. Allow room for both if possible. For example, pre-recorded interviews are tough! I am much better live.

No assessment is foolproof. Mistakes can be made. Select a test that is representative of the work the candidate will be doing so that the results can be used to judge job performance. Make sure the instructions are clear and reduce ambiguity in places where it can impact the results of the assessment. By doing these things, you can address the obvious limitation of any assessment as much as possible in evaluating the candidate fairly, while also being representative of the needs of the team.

Often, employers don't truly know who they need. Large clients have their own verification tools, and most companies can't afford to tailor tests to their needs. We don't see a future in this approach. At ProGuild, we certify candidates' skills through real interviews. Employers don't need to create conditions; they can filter through already conducted interviews in search of the candidates they need. It's that simple.

Relying solely on assessments might overlook other crucial factors like cultural fit or soft skills. 1] Test Anxiety: Some candidates may perform poorly due to test anxiety, which doesn’t necessarily reflect their true abilities. Providing a comfortable testing environment can mitigate this. 2] Cultural Bias: Some assessments may inadvertently favor certain cultural or educational backgrounds. Regularly review and update tests to ensure they are fair and inclusive. 3] False Positives/Negatives: No tool is perfect. For example, a candidate might score high on a cognitive test but lack practical problem-solving skills in real-world scenarios.

In one of my Goldman Sachs interviews, I was asked to use a virtual tool called "HireVue". It sounds easy but pre-recorded answers with just yourself are tough! I did not do well, and it was unfortunate since I was qualified for the role. I wish there was a live component.

These two assessment providers have a strong reputation in the field of talent assessment and are widely used by organizations for hiring, leadership development, and talent management. SHL Talent Measurement: It offers a wide range of assessments for various job-related skills and competencies, including cognitive abilities, personality traits, and job-specific skills. They are known for their rigor and reliability in helping organizations make informed hiring decisions. Hogan Assessments: Hogan provides assessments designed to measure personality, values, and potential derailers in leadership roles. It's particularly valuable for evaluating leadership potential and understanding how individuals may perform under different circumstances.

1] HackerRank: A platform for coding assessments that can simulate real-world programming tasks. 2] Gallup StrengthsFinder: A personality assessment that helps identify individual strengths and how they align with job roles. 3] SHL Talent Measurement: Offers a wide range of tests from cognitive ability to personality assessments. 4] Pymetrics: Uses neuroscience-based games to assess cognitive and emotional traits, providing insights into how candidates might perform in different roles.

Assessment dose not relate to specific industry skills ,Assessment is always based on personal skills ,Job description skills , Position, teamwork skills, and leadership style, knowledge and education.

These are superficial checks of candidates' skillsets, and those who evaluate them likely won't have matching expertise, leading to a lack of objectivity. We've eliminated this by replacing it with peer-to-peer (p2p) validation, where factual competencies are verified within the scope of global skills.

I would strongly recommend limiting evaluations to a minimum. Candidates currently have a limited tolerance for excessive hurdles. I'd suggest thinning the hiring process down to the essential components. Look for promise with the applicants interviews, job experience, hobbies, but consider the more we prolong the hiring process the faster we lose the candidate's commitment to the process. I feel we should only test for speciality or precision positions which we cannot train for. If an exam or challenge needs to be completed, we should ideally ensure it is mobile compatible for ease of access and submission.

In my experience I have found personality assessments as great points of discussion when working with a client but not a great summation of who they are. Each assessment has the potential to provide clarity to a blind spot the client was unaware of. Like why they self sabotage or feel they have to please everyone. We then tie that to the results in their career. To use any of these assessments as the final answer without ever taking to an applicant would be a fail of any hiring process. There are so many reasons why the results may not be as valid as you think. I have found the best practice is to use them to help place a person on the right team verse hiring them.

Uhm…. You don’t! ?? It’s a waste of resources and candidate time. If you are unable to shortlist applications, no matter how many, you don’t have a good system in place! How hard is it to read resumes, consider applications and categorise between a yes, no and maybe pile? ?? You literally can lose some great talent if you limit their ability on personality tests, cognitive assessments and silly timed games.

In leadership hiring a lot of the hardest work is done before the interview. You need to ensure you’re defining a role that complements your existing team to best deliver your company strategy. Doing that well requires self-awareness and honesty above everything. If you can then translate those requirements in a set of questions, you can ask the same questions to all candidates. It’s helpful to define what a good answer could look like beforehand, as well as a scoring scale (e.g., 1-4 where 1 is little to no evidence and 4 is very compelling evidence). You can use an AI notetaking tool, like @metaview, to record your meeting and pull out key info against your requirements above. With that info to hand, you can score the candidate.

From my experience running Typescouts, integrating assessment tools with a thoughtful hiring strategy has been a game-changer. For example, using a combination of cognitive tests and real-world simulations helped us identify top talent for our clients without bias. It’s crucial to blend these tools with personal judgment to ensure a well-rounded evaluation process.