The biggest question that arises when an organization considers psychological assessment for some purpose (selection, development, both, etc.) is just what should be assessed. This is not a completely straight-forward question.
Assessment tools come mainly in two flavors. On the one hand are tests that measure some element of cognitive capacity or functioning, such as verbal, numerical or spatial reasoning. On the other hand are tests of individual differences (aka personality) as these relate specifically to work. But just what cognitive elements should be assessed? And what personality characteristics are likely to be associated with success?
To answer that question you need to understand the nature of the job or jobs in question, and make a link between that understanding and the assessment tools to be used. If you can demonstrate that the job requires an incumbent to work extensively with statistics, and to draw valid conclusions from them, it’s quite likely that a cognitive assessment of numerical reasoning will be useful. But you may also see that the incumbent needs to work effectively as part of a team, and to build professional networks inside and outside the organization; personality measures that address characteristics having to do with things like sociability and persuasiveness might be indicated.
It’s hard, though, to reach these kinds of conclusions on an ad hoc basis, with a careful and defensible separate analysis for each role. This is where competencies come in.
I like to think of competencies as clusters of attributes that predict work behavior and performance in specific areas. Many competency models (aka competency frameworks) have been created, and there is wide consensus on just what the key competencies are. Typical competencies include such things as “Analytic Thinking”, “Planning and Organizing”, “Networking”, “Persuasiveness” and so on. Each of these can be easily linked to cognitive or personality attributes likely to predict success in the competency area.
But what competencies to use? Standard competency models may have 20 or more competencies, and the majority of these will have limited relevance to a particular job. Best-practice recommendations suggest that assessments be restricted to five to eight competencies, preferably at the lower end of this range. This means that it’s important to think and consult carefully about just what is important in a particular job or job category, and to document the decision about the competency set to be used in a systematic and straightforward way.
Once the competency set is selected, the assessment protocol can be developed. Some competencies, such as Analytic Thinking, may require assessments composed of both cognitive and personality measures (e.g. numerical and verbal reasoning, along with critical thinking and a comfort with the abstract), while others like Persuasiveness may use only personality measures (e.g. social confidence, interest in others’ points of view, gregariousness).
We recommend standardized tools that make the link between competencies and assessments easy, with reports generated that address competency potential in a valid and powerful way. But you can’t get away from it – the key to using these tools properly is a solid understanding of the nature of the roles involved, and a careful selection of the best target competencies.
Of course, making the best use possible of the information is another matter, whether it’s to support decision-making or to help individuals fully develop their competency potential. But that’s another story.