standardized tests can be useful- but, in my experience, should be compounded with profiling.
If you know me from, say, 20 years, you know that until recently I never said that I was a member of Mensa- actually, I started saying it online really when I entered the Mensa International group on Facebook.
why? because it is just a test- one of many.
I know that it is quite common to ask people to pass this or that test, not just IQ, or its emotional equivalent.
when I started working for Compagnie Générale Informatique in Italy in 1990, I was asked to pass a graphological test (and never shown the results :@).
again, I said: just another test.
I do understand the logic behind the tests- building a neutral reference.
but I value more “profiling”- probably because, also thanks to helping as a kid my father to prepare his roles, I started studying the consistency of profiles with the data provided by tests.
as an example, think about a fiction book that you like, and think about one that wasn’t that impressive.
chances are- the one that you liked more had a story or roles that had a convincing personality, so vivid and consistent to sound true.
I remember vividly the day when I was asked to start reviewing people for the team, in the first company I was working for (the funny part: at the time, I was still officially a junior programmer- doing personnel selection 
).
the first time, it was to select somebody to assign to the number collecting part of the project control activities for a large project, after we were requested to add a project management software (no, not microsoft project- it was in late 1980s) that wasn’t just requiring few minutes a day (some Lotus 1-2-3 tables that I had built), but a full-time person.
the second time, it was trickier (I was still a programmer), as it was a real personnel selection.
unfortunately, some people came “suggested” by other employees.
and, more than once, they knew how to pass the tests- including the motivational interview.
my part was both the technical one, and assessing if the person could fit the team.
it took sometime a long time, over 20 minutes, but when my nose tickled 
and I started asking different questions, eventually I was able to find who had been not just suggested, but also prepared for the interview.
like a guy that I said wasn’t fit for the team, and that went to be nicknamed “prezzemolo” (parsley), as he popped up whenever a conversation was going on
the secret? no secret at all- just pick up a book on designing questionnaires- actually, download for free LimeSurvey, an open source tool for developing surveys, that includes also some tutorials on the logic behind survey-building.
whenever you ask something to somebody, check through other questions not directly related the consistency of what is said.
often, somebody prepared for an interview will give you the “required” (expected) answers.
I did apply this approach many times, both to personnel selection and when coaching people, or when delivering methodology training, to check if people really understood what was said, or simply pretended to, and assess the real level of satisfaction.
an issue to consider: if you profile through questions, instead of just observing, beware of the “Hawthorne effect”-you sometime could influence the results.
also, when getting the feed-back and answers, unless you pre-designed the interview path, you risk bringing yourself into the interview, more than the subject of the interview, and further elicit answers from the other person, whose instinct becomes to deliver answers that generate a positive non-verbal or verbal feed-back from you.
my basic rule? whenever assigned a team, I try to understand both their motivation and the way they have been managed before, as often you need to “show the change”.
I had more than once people on teams that were introduced with a “sky high” reputation, or geniuses- but then, it was immediately clear that that reputation had been earned in other contexts and structures, and wasn’t relevant to the task at hand.
so, whenever I was required to interview somebody after they passed some tests, I tried to profile them, and not to be influenced by the tests, and then to join the two pieces of information.
because the tests have another drawback: you are focused and alert (albeit stressed) when filling the forms etc, but on the job you have to pass tests not when you want and are able to prepare, but when needed
Tags: checks, human, iq, limesurvey, management, mensa, profile, profiling, project, questionnaire, resource, selection, test, tests