{"id":34205,"date":"2022-06-18T04:29:00","date_gmt":"2022-06-18T04:29:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hoozoocomm.co.za\/cognadev\/?p=34205"},"modified":"2026-06-29T09:55:47","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T09:55:47","slug":"psychological-assessment-deployment-within-my-organization-does-it-make-a-difference","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hoozoocomm.co.za\/cognadev\/2022\/06\/18\/psychological-assessment-deployment-within-my-organization-does-it-make-a-difference\/","title":{"rendered":"Psychological assessment deployment within my organization, does it make a difference?"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space height=”20px”][vc_custom_heading text=”Psychological assessment deployment within my organization, does it make a difference?” font_container=”tag:h1|font_size:35px|text_align:left|color:%23049EB3″ google_fonts=”font_family:Arvo%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700%2C700italic|font_style:700%20bold%20regular%3A700%3Anormal” css=””][vc_empty_space height=”10px”][vc_custom_heading text=”By Paul Barrett” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:20px|text_align:left|color:%23000000″ google_fonts=”font_family:Lato%3A100%2C100italic%2C300%2C300italic%2Cregular%2Citalic%2C700%2C700italic%2C900%2C900italic|font_style:700%20bold%20regular%3A700%3Anormal” css=””][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space height=”40px”][vc_column_text css=””]<\/p>\n

How do I know if my chosen psychological assessments or organizational surveys ‘make a difference’ in my organization?<\/h3>\n

Before we look closer at this question, Figure 1 shows the types of recruitment tools\/assessments which define the assessment market.[\/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”34206″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” css=””][vc_column_text css=””]Figure 1: Typical Assessment types comprising the assessment market<\/p>\n

Figure 2 shows the broad employee assessment domains in which psychological and assessment tools are used.[\/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”34207″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” css=””][vc_column_text css=””]<\/p>\n

Figure 2: The broad applications-areas comprising the employee assessment market<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cBefore-After\u201d evidence comes in several flavours and timescales<\/h3>\n

I\u2019m using that \u201cbefore-after\u201d phrasing to clarify how causality might be most clearly addressed. That is, by comparing relevant outcomes before the use of the chosen assessments\/recruitment\/workforce survey tools to the outcomes observed during and after their deployment, one might infer that any differences in outcomes could reflect the deployment impact\u00a0(given the exclusion of other factors potentially impacting outcomes)<\/strong>. So, what might constitute empirical evidence?<\/p>\n

Quantifiable cost savings\/hiring efficiencies<\/h3>\n

The typical efficiency statement associated with this kind of evidence looks something like:\u00a0the average time to hire went from months to weeks and saved an estimated 20,000 hours of work from the recruitment team. Recruiters spent 80% less time reviewing applications.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The problem of course is that from such statements, we are actually none the wiser as to the magnitude of financial benefit, nor exactly how it was realised. It may be that such information is commercially sensitive or that it\u2019s just too complex to calculate what the saved time and efficiencies amount to financially. That complexity is exemplified in one of Cognadev\u2019s technical reports entitled:\u00a0The ROI of the Gallup Q12: Assessing the true value of high-cost HR interventions.<\/a><\/p>\n

In addition, no information is provided in such statements as to how many of the\u00a0new-selection-process<\/span>\u00a0employees fail to perform as expected over a certain timescale, leave voluntarily, or compare in terms of churn\/ retention rate to previous cohorts While upfront costs and efficiencies may look positive, it is possible these are negated by increasing costs incurred over time.<\/p>\n

My suspicion is that these efficiency statements are similar to the claims made by those who used utility analysis to show the significant financial benefits of using psychometric testing. The usually huge expected monetary gains computed using the standard Brogden-Cronbach-Gleser utility model remain\u00a0unobservable<\/strong>\u00a0financial projections, as explained in a sensible overview chapter by\u00a0Philip L. Roth, Philip Bobko & Hunter Mabo<\/a>\u00a0(2001) and demonstrated computationally by\u00a0Sturman<\/a>\u00a0(2000), in which the abstract states:<\/p>\n

\u201cThis paper argues that most utility analysis (UA) applications are flawed because they employ an overly simplistic formula. This piece reviews the literature on UA adjustments and demonstrates that the adjustments have a large impact on resulting estimates. These results imply that human resources programs do not invariably yield positive returns; rather, intervention success is contingent on program-specific, organizational, and environmental factors.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Share Price\/Total Shareholder Return<\/h3>\n

It is tempting to examine the share price of an organization over time, pre-and-post psychometrics deployment, but this is well-nigh impossible as a method of attributing company performance to the use of psychological assessment or workplace surveys. Why? Because so many other factors external to HR workforce interventions can affect such global indices. The recent COVID pandemic is a reminder just how powerful the effects of these external socio-economic conditions can impact any organization, positively or negatively.<\/p>\n

Increased profitability and perceived financial value of the organization<\/h3>\n

This requires careful financial analytics of what is usually a years-long initiative to facilitate significant change and focus among the executive members of leadership teams within an organization, so as to impact corporate profitability, market share, and even the value itself of an organization as perceived by shareholders and investors. A detailed\u00a0Cognadev case-study blog<\/a>\u00a0shows what this looks like in practice, and the clear evidence of financial impact which was achieved:<\/p>\n

\u201cA marked difference was found between the results of the two due-diligence procedures that were conducted within the 3-year time frame. The transformational initiative was gauged to have contributed to a significant improvement in the performance of the executive team and the organisation as a whole.\u00a0This translated into an increment of approximately \u20ac3bn to the net asset value of the organisation<\/strong>, which had a significant positive impact on the value of its shares and, therefore, the final acquisition consideration of the organisation.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

This is probably one of the most influential forms of evidence that has clear C-Suite credentials, yet how many senior HR executives or even C-Suite recruitment consultants do the necessary hard yards to acquire such evidence in support of their strategies\/decision-making?<\/p>\n

Event-based evidence \u2013 Accident Rates\/Safety, more measurably efficient\/productive employees<\/h3>\n

At a more specific level of analysis, evidence of impact is relatively straightforward when deploying assessments which are targeted to produce clearly specified and measurable outcomes (such as a decrease in workplace\/site accidents within an infrastructure or mining organization<\/span>). Because the outcome is directly measurable and usually mandatory, existing recording systems make such comparative analytics straightforward. Likewise recorded counter-productive\/adverse workplace behaviours, or even personal performance targets which are directly measurable (sales, product assembly, etc.).<\/p>\n

However, in every case, there has to be a \u2018before\u2019 criterion against which the new assessment impact can be compared. For example, it\u2019s of no value to institute a new assessment or AI video interview which is designed to help select more \u2018safe\u2019 employees if you have no idea of the current safety incident rates, severity, and characteristics.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n

The extent to which psychological assessment solutions can contribute to the effectiveness of people decisions and organisational viability, is of critical importance for corporate users as well as for the talent management industry. However, given the dynamic and interactive effects involved, a rigorous evaluation of the quality and appropriateness of assessment practices within specific contexts may be required to determine the associated financial, organisational and personal benefits involved.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space height=”20px”][vc_custom_heading text=”Psychological assessment deployment within my organization, does it make a difference?” font_container=”tag:h1|font_size:35px|text_align:left|color:%23049EB3″ google_fonts=”font_family:Arvo%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700%2C700italic|font_style:700%20bold%20regular%3A700%3Anormal” css=””][vc_empty_space height=”10px”][vc_custom_heading text=”By Paul Barrett”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":34204,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[44],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-assessment-issues"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hoozoocomm.co.za\/cognadev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34205","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hoozoocomm.co.za\/cognadev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hoozoocomm.co.za\/cognadev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hoozoocomm.co.za\/cognadev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hoozoocomm.co.za\/cognadev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34205"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/hoozoocomm.co.za\/cognadev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34205\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34208,"href":"https:\/\/hoozoocomm.co.za\/cognadev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34205\/revisions\/34208"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hoozoocomm.co.za\/cognadev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/34204"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hoozoocomm.co.za\/cognadev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hoozoocomm.co.za\/cognadev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hoozoocomm.co.za\/cognadev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}