Psychological assessment is often conducted as standard tests such as cognitive ability test, integrity test, aptitude test, personality test, and so forth (Ajila & Okafor, 2012). These tests are developed based on scientific principles and psychological theories; they have been standardized and fine-tuned for the purpose of effective employment screening and performance prediction. According to Hegebarth (2012), these assessment tests “are validated by organizational psychologists and other experts, and are purported to be excellent predictors of on-the-job performance” (p. 31). These tests, if used properly, may provide important clues to help employers objectively select workers who best fit in the job positions and the corporate culture. Therefore, I believe a psychological assessment should be used as a hiring tool.
The use of psychological assessment depends on the type of jobs. It may be necessary to use these tests to evaluate potential workers' personality traits which may become important to performance and success on the job position. For example, in positions of customer service, teaching, consulting, etc., workers with people-oriented personalities may perform better, and they may be identified by personality tests. Psychological assessment can save people from emotional suffering by screening them out of jobs in which their personalities do not fit. For many jobs, psychological assessment is not necessary. For instance, technician and programmers jobs are more skill-oriented thus workers' personalities have little impact to their performance. Also, psychological assessment should not be used as the sole criterion for employment evaluation because of its limitations. In the hiring process, many methods can be used together to evaluate potential employees' overall qualification.
Ajila, C. O., & Okafor, L. (2012). Employment testing and human resource management. IFE PsychologIA, 20(2), 91-98.
Hegebarth, K. (2012). Hiring optimization: Measuring the effectiveness of hiring tools on operational performance. Employment Relations Today (Wiley), 39(1), 31-36. doi:10.1002/ert.21352