Pre-employment testing is becoming ever more popular with employers who, over the last decade, have seen the number of applications for their job openings rise significantly. Such testing allows recruiters to gauge both technical proficiency for a role and specific personality traits that may be deemed advantageous - before even meeting an applicant face-to-face. The benefit to such screening is obvious; if your company receives 50 applicants for a position, a full round of interviews will be costly, in both a time and money sense. Pre-employment testing allows companies to cherry-pick those candidates who warrant an interview, from those who probably don’t. But what do candidates think of such testing? Is it expected, or a surprise? And what about fairness – perhaps some candidates resent such recruitment methods? And what of the opinions of direct employers? In this whitepaper, we attempt to shed-light on these attitudes, from both the candidate and employer perspective. There are some interesting statistics throughout, which have helped us make some specific recommendations for all stakeholders in the process to consider.

1. Attitudes Towards Candidate Testing
- From Both Sides
A Technically Compatible Whitepaper 26 February 2014
Connect
Technically Compatible Tel: 0800 488 0175
The Evolve Building Int Tel: +44 191 305 1042
Rainton Bridge Business Park
Houghton-le-Sprint, Co Durham
DH4 5QY
@TechCompatible

2. INTRODUCTION
There are many reasons that more employers have embraced
pre-employment testing in recent years. Principally, it comes
down to financial resources – testing can help significantly
reduce recruitment costs and safeguard your business from
a potential bad hire. In the same way some companies utilise
testing to gauge suitability of personality traits, in industries
that require a high level of technical proficiency, such as the
IT industry, testing can also be used to vet candidates for
the correct level of knowledge before reaching the interview
stage. In a scenario where you may be experiencing a large
volume of applicants for a position, being able to gauge
Principally, it comes down to
financial resources
– testing can help
significantly reduce
recruitment costs
“
”
{Did You Know?}
Leading UK graduate
recruiters receive an
average of
85 applications
per role.
technical proficiency early can become an invaluable way of saving on recruitment costs.
Testing can also help ensure you don’t pass over hidden talent. Through reading a CV alone, it is difficult to
judge suitability for a role. However, having a CV alongside detailed testing scores in relevant subject areas can
make it far easier to decide who you would like to invite for an interview.
While the benefits of pre-employment testing are clear, it is also important to consider all of the stakeholders in
the process. What do they think of candidate testing? Could some candidates be put off if asked to complete
a test? How much do employers really value them? And what about cheating? Would many candidates be
tempted to try and beat the system? In this paper, we will explore these questions and more, to provide useful
insight into the psychology of pre-employment testing.
Pre-employment Testing
The aim of this Whitepaper?

3. CANDIDATE PERSPECTIVE
In a recent survey of 534 UK graduates regarding attitudes toward unsupervised
computer-based testing, almost 80% of respondents suggested they had
completed an ability test for selection purposes. This isn’t surprising when we
take that particular survey sample into account; being university students
applying for graduate positions, it is fair to argue that this is a particularly
difficult scenario for companies to differentiate between candidates.
According to the Association for Graduate Recruiters, leading UK
employers receive on average 85 applications per graduate position. Alongside
the fact that the majority of graduates will have little experience with which to
differentiate themselves, this makes pre-employment testing a particularly good
option for graduate employers.
The majority of those who had completed an
unsupervised test had done so at home. This
highlights one of the benefits of computerised
testing from the candidate perspective;
users can complete tests in their own time,
where they feel most comfortable – arguably
conditions which should facilitate optimum
performance. A lesser number of people had
completed a test in a shared computer room
or private office, showing also that some
appreciate being able to complete a test from a
remote location should they need to.
of candidates have
completed an
ability test
before.
77%
45% of people suggested they had been somehow interrupted during a testing process, a surprisingly high
number. The main causes highlighted were other people or a telephone / other electronic device. Candidates
should learn from these findings and be sure they are make adequate preparations before beginning a test.
Actively make others aware of what they are doing and its importance, while also turning off any devices that
could well cause a distraction.
• Relevance to the role.
• Ease of use.
• Level of support available.
• Whether the test is used on a standalone basis or as part of a
wider assessment.
Also interesting is the fact that four out of ten respondents thought computerised ability testing was unfair.
However, employers should take note that a number of manageable factors were found to influence how a test
was perceived:
How widespread is Pre-employment testing?
Interruptions and fairness
85%
at home
31%
in a shared
computer room
18%
in a private
office
Source: Cubiks - Review of candidate attitudes towards
unsupervised computer-based testing 2006
Using these factors as a guide, employers should be able to achieve a relatively ‘fair’ testing process.
‘Ease of use’ and ‘Level of support’ can both be catered for simply by choosing the right testing
platform. Use a service which is both comprehensive in question content and reporting, while still being
simple to use from a candidate perspective, such as Technically Compatible.
Reinforcing test fairness.

4. CHEATING
One of the biggest perceived issues with unsupervised pre-employment testing is the possibility of cheating.
Naturally, the environment for such testing cannot be controlled by the employer, meaning unscrupulous
candidates could look to skew test results in their favour.
One in ten of those who had taken an unsupervised test
admitted to some kind of cheating. This ranged from
asking a friend or relative for help with the test to obtaining
information on the questions in advance or practising under
a pseudonym. A small number even reported they had been
able to circumvent the technology used to host the test.
So what of ‘psychometric’ testing - a specific group of testing mechanics which are generally used to provide
insight into a candidate’s personality traits. In a 2011 survey involving 286 participants, a number of questions
were asked referring to the topic of psychometric assessment.
We can see some of the headline statistics below, with 10% of respondents indicating that they had cheated
on a psychometric assessment. This further reinforces the need for recruiters to use test results as a guide
when interviewing candidates, rather than taking them as gospel used as part of, potentially critical, recruitment
decisions.
10% Admitted
to cheating on
a psychometric test.
31% Knew someone
who had cheated.
5% Thought others
didn't cheat.
79% Agreed
psychometric testing is a
useful tool.
33% of those who
cheated created a
favourable impression of
themselves.
31% Admitted they had
considered cheating.
The Prevalence of Cheating
Source: Psylutions Research Whitpaper: Candidates’ Attitudes Towards Psych Testing and Cheating 2011
admitted some kind
of cheating.
11%
5%asked a friend
or relative
for help.
4%obtained the
questions in advance
or practised under
a psudonym
2%managed to
circumvent the
technology
Firstly, it is inevitable in any testing situation that
some cheating may occur. To provide a safeguard,
recruiters should avoid relying solely on testing
results for judgement, but rather use these as part
of wider information gathering to inform recruitment
decisions. Proper thought should also be given
to which online testing platform to use. By using
a platform such as Technically Compatible, which
uses strict question time limits and would be very
difficult to corrupt technically, will help reduce any
potential exposure to cheating. Tight restrictions on
exactly who can take a test, and how many times, will
also help reduce the risk of candidates ‘practising’
beforehand through the use of a pseudonym.
What should you do differently?

5. EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
We can use information from a survey of 375 UK organisations on the topic of pre-employment testing to gain
valuable insight. Perhaps a fairly obvious finding; almost all of the employers reported regularly seeing lies
and exaggerations when receiving CVs and application forms. In fact, only 2% suggested that they had never
identified a lie on an application.
When looking at reasons for candidate rejection, we
find that lacking core skills for the position and a
perceived poor personality fit were the main two
reasons respectively that candidates weren’t
successful. This provides further justification
for pre-employment testing. By testing for
major core skills before offering a candidate
an interview, businesses can avoid resource
intensive interviews, saving time and money.
Similarly, recruiters can utilise psychometric
testing to gauge the prospective personality fit of
a given candidate, again streamlining the process,
improving recruitment efficiency.
of candidate
rejections were due
to a lack of
core skills
36%
Only 4% of employers surveyed said that candidates never
asked them for feedback. It’s not surprising; we all like to
know - if I have failed, why I have failed, and what we I do to
avoid failure the next time. In the context of pre-employment
testing, recruiters should make an effort to provide candidates
with feedback in the form of results. Use a testing platform that
includes reporting of some kind, to both help in your decision
making, but also to communicate back to the candidate if they
are unsuccessful.
Testing shouldn't be
unnecessarily long-
winded, and should be
hosted on a plaform that is
both intuitive to use
and easy on the eye
“
”Overall, 58% of employers
reported that online recruitment
technology had made it easier
for them to source the right
candidates. Using pre-employment
testing therefore, is arguably a
no-brainer for businesses, helping
to ensure that only candidates with
the skills needed for the role are
considered.
The need for Pre-employment testing?
Feedback and Technology
... while some were
because of a poor
personality fit
33%
Smart employers should use a variety of selection techniques to ‘cover all of the bases’. A candidate
can lie about their skills as they wish, but pre-employment testing offers some protection from an
eventual bad hiring decision by actually testing for competencies.
Seeing through the lies.
It is important to consider testing platform technology. A
significant number of employers suggested that they had lost
candidates who had been unwilling to invest time in a particular
selection process. Although it could be argued this reflects
somewhat on the candidates in question, still make an effort to
ensure your process is streamlined and relatively pain-free. Testing
shouldn’t be unnecessarily long-winded, and should be hosted on
a platform that is both intutive to use and easy on the eye.
Choose the right platform.
Source: Cubiks - Review of candidate attitudes towards unsupervised
computer-based testing, The Employer Perspective 2006

6. Connect
Technically Compatible
The Evolve Building
Rainton Bridge Business Park
Houghton-le-Spring
Co Durham
DH45QY
Tel: 0800 488 0175
Int Tel: +44 191 305 1042
@TechCompatible