5 levels of quality checks on inputs

One Input, Multiple Outputs
October 2, 2017
Actionable Steps to Enabling Post-Assessment Transformation
October 27, 2019


With the rise of personality assessments and their frequent use in recruitment, many organisations and hiring managers want an accurate and trustworthy tool. One place to start in determining accuracy, is to know if a tool is equipped with measures to reduce the likelihood of candidates faking their answers.

For individuals taking the assessment on their own accord, it is also in their interest to have an accurate gauge of themselves. Like a health check on the physical body of a person, the report provides insights about a person’s “health” condition at a specific point in time, More specifically in psychological tests, it is the individual’s psychological readiness to manage self, work with others, handle tasks and manage change.

Akin to a physical checkup however, we hear how people are often averse to these tests because they feel judged and evaluated. It is natural to feel discomfort and vulnerable letting your weaknesses be brought out by an external party, only to be told back to you.

At SQI, assessment and development go hand in hand. In laying the foundation for quality assessment, we have five levels of checks.

Consistency Detector

The Consistency Detector has been built-into the online questionnaire. It clarifies if the individual has clarity on the behaviours that he/she perceives to be most effective in the workplace at that point in time. Unlike in-born traits, workplace behavioural traits are nurtured. They are subject to change due to organisational, environmental and personal variables. What a person believes to be important for career progression, satisfying superior’s expectations and meeting demands in their work environment, can and will change over time.

System Psychology Model

Rooted in Barker & Bateson’s System Psychology Model, the SQI assessment recognises that human behaviour is part of a complex system. The effectiveness of a person’s behaviour depends on its fit with the nature of his/her work, the people working together, and the work environment. For instance, a person whose role involves enforcing safety rules among junior technicians in a regulated and formal work environment is likely to be effective if he/she scores high on the “Enforcing”, “Direct” and “Disciplined” traits. Other variables impacting work performance, such as his/her abilities, need to be taken into consideration as well.

Forced-Ranking Measurement Scale

The Forced-Ranking Measurement Scale used in the online questionnaire assures quality input as it reflects real world realities where people have to make choices. In determining his/her order of priority on a number of behavioural statements, a person is mentally stretched. Thus, concentration is kept high. Assessment fatigue is not a concern either as the questionnaire consists of only 64 forced-ranking items / statements (4 statements per group). It can be easily completed within 15 – 20 minutes. Hence, the SQI assessment strikes a balance between depth and user-friendliness.

Type of Questions

Positive, Concise and Equally Desirable Questions from a Job Point of View used in the questionnaire ensure valid and reliable input since we are assessing workplace personality only. By being work-specific, this is also the reason why you do not have to answer tons of questions, saving yourself a lot of time with quality output. With questions of similar nature, you will find there is no model answer. This means respondents cannot and need not prepare for the assessment. They simply complete the questionnaire as it is.

Robust Score Configuration

Respondents will not know the full spectrum of factors related to a specific job nor the full formula on how their trait inclination scores are mathematically configured. As much as people introspect about themselves, it is unlikely anyone will spend their time daily to track how their own traits interact with one another both mathematically and qualitatively that result in certain behaviours. Even so, they may not do so with a clear classification and definition of all their traits, let alone the impact of the other four remaining factors influencing their actual work behaviours. This complexity has been captured within the design of the questionnaire, with the features described earlier. When respondents are not certain about how the final answers in the report are scientifically derived, they are less motivated to try to ‘fake’ their answers.


Comments are closed.

Call Now ButtonCall Us