In recruitment, psychometric assessments are used to provide insight into a candidate’s capability, behaviour, and potential fit for a role. These are not always easy to assess through interviews alone and can depend heavily on the skill and experience of the interviewer. One of the key advantages of psychometric testing is that it provides a more objective, structured way of measuring these factors, helping to reduce bias and improve decision-making.
- Psychometric testing is an objective and consistent way to assess candidates, reducing reliance on personal judgement in interviews
- Psychometric assessments allow direct comparison between candidates, helping identify who is genuinely stronger for the role
- Psychometric testing highlights strengths and potential risks that may not emerge in interviews, giving a more complete picture of each candidate
- Using psychometric assessments improves consistency and supports clearer hiring decisions, making it easier to explain and justify outcomes
- When combined with interviews and reference checks, psychometric testing improves overall hiring accuracy, leading to better long-term hires
When selecting an assessment, it is useful to understand the distinction between normative and ipsative tests. While hybrid tools also exist, this distinction provides a simple and practical framework. Both approaches have value, but they serve different purposes, and understanding this is important when making hiring decisions.
Normative vs Ipsative Tests
Normative tests compare an individual’s results against a relevant population (e.g. working adults, managers, or industry benchmarks). This allows employers to understand how a candidate ranks relative to others on key traits such as reasoning ability, attention to detail, or interpersonal style. Because of this, normative assessments are particularly well suited to recruitment. They allow for meaningful differentiation between candidates and support more objective, evidence-based decisions.
In contrast, ipsative tests measure an individual’s preferences relative to themselves. These assessments typically use forced-choice formats, requiring candidates to choose between equally desirable options. The result is a profile that highlights relative strengths (e.g. more people-focused than task-focused), but does not indicate absolute levels of those traits. As a result, ipsative tests do not support direct comparison between candidates, which limits their usefulness in selection contexts.
Key Differences
Normative Tests
- Benchmark candidates against a broader population
- Provide absolute scores (e.g. high, average, low)
- Enable direct comparison between candidates
- Stronger evidence of predictive validity for job performance
- Well suited to selection, shortlisting, and risk assessment
Ipsative Tests
- Measure relative preferences within an individual
- Often use forced-choice formats
- Do not provide absolute scores or rankings
- Limit objective comparison between candidates
- Better suited to development, coaching, and self-awareness
Practical Application in Recruitment
Best practice recruitment processes typically rely on normative assessments as the primary psychometric tool. These tests support structured decision-making by providing consistent, comparable data across candidates. When combined with interviews, reference checks, and other assessment methods, they help validate impressions and identify potential risks.
Ipsative assessments can still add value, but their role is different. They are more useful in later stages of the employee lifecycle such as onboarding, leadership development, and team alignment where the focus is on understanding how an individual prefers to operate rather than comparing them to others.
Conclusion
For recruitment purposes, normative psychometric tests are generally the preferred option due to their ability to benchmark and differentiate candidates. Ipsative tools can complement this process but should not be relied upon for hiring decisions in isolation.
A balanced approach using normative data for selection and behavioural insights for development typically delivers the best outcome.