Have you ever been asked to do a test before being offered a new position? You know, where you have to fill out lots of questionnaires on problem solving, and personal characteristics?
Personally, I find those assessments rather entertaining, but I do realize how valuable they must be for the recruiting organization. The wrong person at the wrong place costs a lot of money.
Not surprisingly, there has been plenty of research lately within the field of psychological testing, especially on what capabilities are best at determining success in the work place. And despite all the emphasis on social skills in job ads, the best predictor for success is actually IQ! Regardless of what position you are up for. (IQ predicts 65% of your future success. Grafology, on the other hand, is hardly useful for predicting success at all)
The latest research has divided the psychological testing community into two camps: the robots and the fortune tellers. The robots claim that you can rely only on pure test results (primarily IQ tests), since that is evidence based. The fortune tellers, on the other hand, claim that you need additional input from other types of testing (e.g. more EQ inspired tests), and perhaps personal meetings to fully assess a candidate.
Within the field of psychology, the debate on how to best test a candidate rages on. What do you think?