Tests are generally perceived as a fairer to the selection decisions, because they judge everyone on the same basis, rather than being based on exams and results taken years ago at university institutions.
When a candidate has completed a psychometric test, had passed a solid behavioral interview and personality profile and has been through a role play presentation with the recruiter, the human resources have covered all basic ground they need in order to make a reasonable decision about who to offer the position.
They are cost-beneficial in the long term, because are relatively cheap and easy to supervise, because the answered are not monitored by correct answers. However, providing feedback can be tedious sometimes, because it requires concentration and evaluation, which takes more time.
Standardized tests can often be subjective, because different people view differently test questions. Interpreting the question depends to a greater degree on the cultural and educational background, on its family values and personal attitude.
Also results in assessing candidates could be different depending on the evaluator. This is so, because when answering the test questions, the candidates might be affected by their current moods, or being under stress, so the standartization of the tests might not answays interpret the results in favour of the candidates.
Respondents can intentionally project and portray themselves in a light very different if they had a face to face interview. Some of the people can respond to the questions in a way that is not genuine, implies self-promotion and deliberately leaves wrong impression to the recruiter.
There is a certain risk involved for the candidates when they have to engage themselves in lengthy tests, before they have the opportunity to first discuss their role and job position with the recruiter. Overtiredness and loss of time, if the