Online psychometric testing

Keith Rodgers looks at the pros and cons of online testing, and whether such systems are really worth the money.

Although the technology is relatively mature and the number of adopters continues to rise, online psychometric testing still has some way to go to convince all the sceptics. Concerns range from the practicalities of providing internet connections, to the difficulties of controlling an off-site testing environment.

As OPP chairman Robert McHenry argues, it's often simply more convenient to put a piece of paper in front of respondents rather than ensure they all have access to a PC. He also expresses concerns about internet connectivity, and speaks of going to two online demonstrations in the last year where the sales representative lost data as a result of a dropped internet connection. Worse still, on a third occasion, they couldn't get online at all.

That's not to say the process should be rejected out of hand, however. OPP itself offers an online system that can handle different European languages at the input and output stage, allowing an applicant to respond in French and a German manager to see the responses in their own language. Another system manages the process by e-mail, allowing it to be completed offline, but distributed electronically. This exploits what McHenry recognises as one of the great advantages of IT-based testing - the ability to capture data at the back-end.

It's these kinds of process benefits that really catch the attention of online enthusiasts. Compared with paper-based systems, online applications vastly improve the data management processes attached to testing. They also increase the reach of a recruiting organisation, effectively allowing them to touch any potential applicant who has access to a PC or library kiosk. In addition, because data is entered only once into the system by the respondent, administrative errors are reduced and costs are cut. From a management perspective, that adds up to faster processes with lower overheads.

Suppliers have also taken steps to overcome some of the problems relating to remote testing. While companies are relatively comfortable allowing personality tests to be conducted by candidates offsite - after all, there are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers - ability tests are more problematic, and there are inevitably concerns that candidates will either spend longer than allowed, or get help with the answers.

The solutions to these issues are both technical and practical. Some online systems simply cut out at the end of the allotted timeframe. In other cases, companies inform applicants that similar tests may be repeated when they come to interviews, implicitly threatening that any cheating will be exposed further down the recruitment process.

In many instances, the issue is not even a technical one. Roy Davis, head of communications at SHL, recommends that organisations should ensure they've sorted out their internal processes before going online, which may mean standardising the way they look at CVs, handle interviews and manage data. If their manual systems don't work, putting part of the process online is only going to exaggerate the problems.

Finally, customers need to look at the cost implications. OPP's McHenry believes that the cost per respondent of a paper-based test is typically around GBP4 to GBP5. In the context of a day's executive mentoring, that's almost negligible, although for low-paid roles that attract a high-volume of applicants it can add up.

Online testing, by contrast, is still predominantly about economies of scale. Pricing has now evolved from the days when online service providers demanded a large upfront investment, and the emphasis tends to be on lower upfront charges and a 'pay-as-you-go' approach.

"If you're looking at one or two hires, it's probably not for you," says Davis. "If you're looking at twenty graduate positions and 1000 applicants, it could be."