ONET Job Suggestions in the OIP+

ONET is an online resource offering detailed descriptions of occupations across the world of work. The ONET database currently lists 965 separate occupations, each individually described, explaining what every occupation requires in knowledge, skills and abilities.

The OIP+ identifies an individual’s occupational related interests:

  • Artistic – Activities involving creative/artistic skills
  • Practical – Activities involving engineering, machine tools, the use of machinery
  • Scientific – Activities involving the understanding of natural and physical sciences
  • Administrative – Activities involving administration and well established procedures
  • Nurturing – Activities centred on helping and caring for others
  • Logical – Activities involving problem solving and analytical skills
  • Persuasive – Activities involving persuasive skills and interaction with customers
  • Managerial – Activities involving management and the control of others

These interests have been mapped to all 965 occupations that are listed by ONET.  Allowing for far more accurate job suggestions that are based entirely on the individuals specific interests. These suggestions are then refined further to target combinations of peoples highest interests allowing middling interests to still influence the outcome, making the suggestions far more accurate.

The OIP+ report describes each of the individuals highest interests, and then offers occupation suggestions based on all of their interests. These occupation suggestions are then broken down into three ability levels, High ability, Moderate ability, and Low ability.

Each suggestion offered is matched to the individuals interests using the Barratt Coefficient, meaning that only the most relevant occupations are suggested, and ones that have little or no relevance to the individual are ignored.

Also, each suggestion includes the ONET SOC code, that when clicked on (ctrl + Click) will link directly to the ONET site for a full description of the specific job. These description explain:

  • the typical tasks involved in this job
  • the skill required for the job
  • the background knowledge that is required
  • the abilities the individual should have for the job
  • the activities they will be expected to perform in the role
  • the expected qualifications the individual will be required to have
  • the typical salary they could earn.

The OIP+ report then goes on to help individuals explore their interests further, providing several exercises for them to complete with the guidance administrator to help them map out their interests and set themselves goals for achieving them.

 

A sample OIP+ report can be downloaded below:

OIP+ Sample Report

 

WAI Integrity Report released

Integrity tests – such as the WAI – have consistently been found to be good predictors of work performance across a wide range of roles and settings.  Systematic reviews suggest their ability to predict performance is only bettered by measures of general intelligence – ‘g’.  Integrity has been shown not only to predict honesty, but also to predict compliance with organisational rules systems and procedures, adherence to safety protocols and risk avoidance, and global job performance.  As such, it is now widely recognised that integrity measures have an important role to play in valid assessment and selection systems.

 

The WAI assesses respondents’ attitude towards honesty, their commitment to adhering to accepted codes of conduct and the importance they attach to moral and ethical standards.   The report outlines the implications of candidates’ scores for their most likely behaviour in the work place.  In addition, on the basis of the respondents’ item profiles,it highlights attitudes  which indicate:

 

  • A preparedness to circumvent workplace rules and regulations
  • A preparedness to take advantage of supervision failures for personal benefit
  • A willingness to personally benefit from the mistakes or errors of others
  • A disregard for the negative impact self-serving behaviour has on others
  • A tolerance of dishonest behaviour

 

Employing staff who have a well-defined sense of personal integrity, and a clear commitment to high ethical standards, is central to the success of most companies.  Opaque integrity tests – those whose items are written in such a way as to not make it obvious they are assessing integrity – have been shown to be the most predictive measures of performance.  Building on this finding, Psytech have developed a novel method for assessing integrity which makes the WAI difficult to fake.  Simulation studies have demonstrated the robustness of this methodology, allowing assessors can be confident of the results they obtain from the WAI.  Moreover, unlike many integrity tests, the WAI items are not intrusive.  As such, using the WAI does not pose the reputational risk that some integrity measures present.

 

A sample report for the WAI is attached below:

WAI Sample Report

Should some people be given more time to complete tests?

In short: No.

Everyone should be given the same time to complete an assessment.

For the UK and many other countries it is illegal to discriminate due to disability. In some extreme cases dyslexia can be considered a disability, and some assessors feel that to balance the test and reduce the chance of discrimination that extra time should be given to the candidate.  This has a variety of problems however.

  1. Dyslexia is not black-and-white. If you have dyslexia it does not mean that you are the same as every other dyslexic. It requires professionals to determine how severe the dyslexia is, and to determine the type or level of assistance the individual needs. If that is the case, it is simply not possible to add a set amount of time to a test. An amount of time that may be beneficial for one may be too much, or too little for another.How is it therefore possible to determine the appropriate amount of time to give to each individual? And not to be too cynical (being dyslexic myself), how do we judge the severity of the dyslexia? Do we just take candidates word? Or require them to bring in certificates from clinical psychologists? And then how is this evidence interpreted to minutes? And how reliable is that evidence? (I was tested 20 years ago, is that still valid?)……I could go on.
  2. Psychometric tests are standardised. Standardisation of tests is one of the main features that allows us to use them to compare people. Therefore, how can results that are based on different standards be compared to norm groups of another. Implications of this are that the test becomes unreliable or the results of the test invalid.

So if adding more time to the test is not an option what can you do?

There are a number of possibilities:

  1. Complete the assessment in the standard way, and compare the results to the same norm group. The candidate may perform well enough for the role. If the score is lower than what would normally be required this may suggest that an alternative method of assessment is required.
  2. Check the job profile. Is verbal/numerical ability essential for this role? And if so what type of verbal ability. Is it therefore essential that the verbal part of the assessment be completed. Or could weightings be used on all areas of assessment to give total scores.
  3. Is the candidate stressed? People with dyslexia may find tasks harder if under stress. Perhaps try conducting the assessment in a one-to-one setting away from where others can observe.
  4. How is the assessment being administered? Sometimes computer based assessments can help.
  5. Make sure the candidate is comfortable with the instructions. Take time going over them to ensure that they are understood, and that the candidate is prepared for the types of questions they are about to encounter.
  6. Ensure that you keep a testing log. In that log take notes of any comments made by the candidate, or any adjustments made to the standardised procedure. This way you can use your notes when taking the results of this candidate into account when compared to others.

 

Further information has been supplied by the BPS below:

Dyslexia and Occupational Testing

 

 

The Derailer Report Launched

The 15FQ+ Derailer Report is a brief screening tool that identifies individuals whose personalities present a risk of undermining the organisation’s success and derailing team performance.  It identifies twelve behavioural syndromes that can impair a person’s performance and present challenges for the team or organisation the individual is working in.

Eccentric – Absent-minded: Disdainful of practical matters, prone to generate fanciful ideas, forgetful, unconventional, lacking realism.

Appeasing– Acquiescent: Passive, unassertive, keen to placate others, requires high levels of support and reassurance, lacking self-confidence.

Suspicious – Mistrustful: Cynical, guarded, prone to be impatient, intolerant and to have difficulty forming trusting mutually supportive relationships.

Volatile – Explosive: tense-driven, lacking in frustration tolerance and social restraint, direct, forthright, temperamental, unpredictable.

Undisciplined – Nonconformist: Not bound by organisational rules regulations and procedures, inattentive to detail, prone to make careless mistakes.

Detached – Disengaged: Distant, aloof, socially inhibited, prone to dislike team work and to avoid forming close personal relationships.

Rigid – Perfectionistic: Lacking expediency, inflexible, wedded to existing systems and procedures, unlikely to take a holistic, strategic view.

Confrontational – Challenging: Lacking in tact and diplomacy, forceful and pushy, domineering, inclined to upset others, insensitive.

Manipulative – Machiavellian: Political, prone to question others’ motive, reluctant to deal with people in an open and upfront manner.

Avoidant – Passive: anxious, prone to self-doubt, threat sensitive, reluctant to express own views and opinions, socially avoidant.

Arrogant – Self-centred: Prone to ‘perform to the gallery’ and show off, opinionated, egotistical, inclined to dominate discussions.

Moody – Sullen: Emotional, changeable, pessimistic, lacking energy and drive, fearful of failure, reluctant to take decisions, dour, forlorn.

 

 

While these behavioural syndromes have been developed from research into personality disorders, the Derailer Report is not a clinical tool.  Rather, it applies these concepts to the world of work, detailing how these syndromes can affect an individual’s behaviour in work settings.

 

Although the behavioural syndromes identified in the Derailer Report typically present significant challenges in most organisations and employment contexts, it should be noted that such syndromes can also be characteristic of high achievers.   (Such individuals may however require ongoing mentoring and support if they are not to destabilise their colleagues and the organisation they are working in).  The Derailer Report should therefore be interpreted in the context of the specific job role that the individual is being assessed for, and with reference to the organisational culture they will be working in.

 

A Sample of the Derailer Report is below:

Derailer Report Sample