Management therefore faces the risks of not hiring the proper person and it would just be a waste of resources to have hired people who will not be contributing to attainment of the goal of the organization.
Being aid to employee selection and development decisions and processes, psychometric tests could not just be administered nor delegated to anybody as there are costs and risks that are involved in the decisions. In the same way that employees' submitted credentials must be verified for authenticity and reliability, psychometric tests are to be evaluated also in terms of validity and reliability of the test.
It may be asked whether it is possible to the have most effective way to evaluate the reliability and validity of any assessment tests so to help the decision maker know exactly how to find the right productive people with certainty and predictability without any catastrophe in hiring any wrong people who simply look good. PsyAsia International (2007) cited a Hong Kong website of an employee testing system that with worldwide claim that testing the people one knows very well will allow one to know which assessment test can be valid and reliable to use. PsyAsia International heavily the claim as to show need for understanding the real essence of test of validity and reliability.3
responded that the obvious assumption is that we know ourselves well and so if the test report provides an accurate reflection of the self that we know, it "must" be valid." 4Using research as basis of criticism, PsyAsia International5 did expose how defective such assessments of test reports by individuals. It therefore cited a study where human resource professionals attending a conference were asked to complete a personality test.
After the personality test, the same professionals were given a randomly generated narrative report but said participants were NOT told that it had been randomly generated and they were asked to evaluate its accuracy. What came out was that 90% of the respondents agreed that the report was either amazingly accurate or very accurate. Were the participants really good in evaluating the accuracy' Or, could it imply that what was randomly selected has the great probability that the result of the test has a statistically significant basis and therefore must be reliable'
It would seem from the above result of research that it was indeed easy to have known that 90% of respondents agreed, but how accurate are the respondents' report' PsyAsia International reminded of suggestions made by various worldwide psychological societies and academics to assess at least 4 types of validity when evaluating tests.6 In the same context then, PsyAsia Internat