Question on a employment screening test
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
It helps if you have the devils advocate amongst your team, keeps everyone from getting tunnel vision IMO
There is a review process where one member of the team is "given the black hat" (appointed the devil's advocate) whose job is literally to poke holes in every assumption and to find fault wherever possible.
It's natural for a group leader to pick people who are like him/herself. They all think much the same way and rapid progress will take place. But it's better if different members of a group think differently.
At one training session I attended two groups were selected based on our Myer's Briggs personality types. Our project was to design a winter extension for the facility we were staying at. The groups met separately and had no idea what the other group was doing.
Our group printed in black ink. We were very skeptical about the practicality of the proposed extension and eventually concluded it would never pay.
The other group wrote in cursive using green and purple ink. They fussed about how to make the extension as cozy as possible and imagined having a large fireplace with couches and woolen blankets.
Both groups were startled by the other group's approach. Just goes to show that a successful project needs people who think differently. A successful project has to be financially viable, practical and in this case also warm and inviting.
It could be a test of the candidate's willingness to keep their head down and do any assigned task - ie answer 600 stupid questions. A potential clerk would answer all the questions. A future CEO would tell them to get stuffed.
It could be a test for bias for or against an industry.
It could be a test of general knowledge.
It could be a test of reading comprehension and reasoning ability.
I think I'd have answered a half dozen questions then handed in my paper (so to speak). And then they would have offered me the job as CEO!
It could be a test for bias for or against an industry.
It could be a test of general knowledge.
It could be a test of reading comprehension and reasoning ability.
I think I'd have answered a half dozen questions then handed in my paper (so to speak). And then they would have offered me the job as CEO!
This question sounds like the garbage in Arizona state testing for high school students. Most questions had a logical answer, some were like "a bird dies of a disease. Was the bird wronged in some way?"
I always picked the most Republican answer (i didn't kill the bird, and he didn't ask for help, so it's not my problem.)
I always picked the most Republican answer (i didn't kill the bird, and he didn't ask for help, so it's not my problem.)
Was for housekipping yob.
I think a job selection process should be relevant to the job.
When we interviewed physicians for a file review position we started by asking them a series of standard questions. Not especially difficult questions but questions concerning matters that were relevant to the role they would be playing. For example "what's the difference between a shoulder separation and a dislocated shoulder?" "What is the recommended treatment for a back injury?" We took into account the physicians work experience when evaluating their answers. We expected more from physicians having relevant experience. For example we didn't offer a position to 2 emergency room physicians who didn't know how to assess an acute knee injury for internal disruption - how could an emergency room physician not know how to do that?
We also gave them as practical test: (1) Read a half dozen medical reports, (2) then prepare and (3) dictate a summary with appropriate conclusions. That tested a physician's ability to read and interpret medical information, to retain the information long enough to create an appropriate summary, and to dictate a literate and useful report. Was key information recognized? was the content appropriate? was it well reasoned? was it medically sensible? There was no "right" answer.
We also contacted 3 references of their choice. Could be a physician they had recently worked with, a hospital administrator, a nurse they had worked with, etc. Was this a physician we could work with on a day to day basis?
We offered jobs to about half the physicians who entered the process. Most of them worked out fine. And that's as good as it gets.
When we interviewed physicians for a file review position we started by asking them a series of standard questions. Not especially difficult questions but questions concerning matters that were relevant to the role they would be playing. For example "what's the difference between a shoulder separation and a dislocated shoulder?" "What is the recommended treatment for a back injury?" We took into account the physicians work experience when evaluating their answers. We expected more from physicians having relevant experience. For example we didn't offer a position to 2 emergency room physicians who didn't know how to assess an acute knee injury for internal disruption - how could an emergency room physician not know how to do that?
We also gave them as practical test: (1) Read a half dozen medical reports, (2) then prepare and (3) dictate a summary with appropriate conclusions. That tested a physician's ability to read and interpret medical information, to retain the information long enough to create an appropriate summary, and to dictate a literate and useful report. Was key information recognized? was the content appropriate? was it well reasoned? was it medically sensible? There was no "right" answer.
We also contacted 3 references of their choice. Could be a physician they had recently worked with, a hospital administrator, a nurse they had worked with, etc. Was this a physician we could work with on a day to day basis?
We offered jobs to about half the physicians who entered the process. Most of them worked out fine. And that's as good as it gets.
Sounds like they want to get physiological profile of you, rather than your knowledge level.
Similar threads
