THE AUSTRALIAN Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) recently cast doubt on the ability of companies to use psychometric testing for determining job fit, following a ruling which found that there was no direct link between personality tests on mine workers and their ability to operate heavy machinery
THE AUSTRALIAN Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) recently cast doubt on the ability of companies to use psychometric testing for determining job fit, following a ruling which found that there was no direct link between personality tests on mine workers and their ability to operate heavy machinery.
The Commission, which was hearing a long-running dispute over the reinstatement of 10 miners at Rio Tinto’s Hail Creek mine in Queensland, found that while psychometric tests enable predictions about which applicants are likely to be high performers, they can’t in themselves assess whether candidates are capable of doing a job.
“Below average performance on a test does not necessarily predict below average performance on the job or inability to do the job,” the Commission found.
“It is feasible that a candidate with a below average result on the test could perform adequately on the job.”
The AIRC had ordered the Rio Tinto to re-employ 16 miners on a preferential basis after it found they were wrongfully dismissed from the company’s Blair Athol operation.
The miners were required to submit to a standard battery of psychometric tests which included applied reading, spatial relations and abstract reasoning, along with an accident risk management questionnaire.
The company applied to the AIRC for exemption from the reinstatement order, after it found that 10 of the workers were unsuitable for re-employment as mobile equipment operators.
However the AIRC rejected the exemption stating that the mine was ordered to reinstate the workers in any positions for which they were suitable, rather than those for which they were the best candidate.
While the Commission found that “applicants who receive higher scores on the tests are likely to perform better on the job than those with lower scores,” it found that the psychometric tests were of “limited relevance” in the case of the above.
However psychometric assessment firm SHL defended the practice, claiming that if the right competencies are not being measured by reliable tests, organisations may end up placing candidates in roles for which they are not best suited.
“If this is the case then the organisation’s entire assessment process could be called into question,” said Sarah Kearney, SHL managing director.
She acknowledged that assessment processes should be called into question if best practice is not adopted, and said the AIRC’s comments were a valuable wake-up call to companies who use psychometric assessment in recruitment or development.
“Unfortunately, there are a number of unreliable and invalidated tests readily available on the market,” she said.
“Psychometric assessment is most valuable in recruitment and selection contexts when actual performance data for an individual is not available.
“It is not best practice to conduct psychometric testing on existing employees, unless they are being selected into a different type of job where performance data is not available,” Kearney said.
