Discussing Personality Results with Candidates

Feeding Back Results

Feedback should be offered to all candidates of the CPQ. The ethical use of personality questionnaires, whether for selection or development, extends to providing feedback of results to all those who want it. The codes of practice relating to psychometric testing produced by the British Psychological Society include clear guidelines on the provision of feedback and the importance of informing candidates prior to a testing session of the availability and nature of feedback provision.

Only a trained user of the instrument may conduct feedback of a personality questionnaire.*

The minimum qualification needed to use the CPQ in this way is the BPS Accredited Test User Training (Personality) certificate. Users who received their Test User Training for an instrument other than the CPQ should ensure they are completely familiar with the scales being measured. Clevry can provide training for users wishing to become more familiar with the library of scales.

*Clevry can provide training on how to give feedback on personality questionnaire results. If you’re interested, get in contact with us at support@clevry.com.

Corroboration of Results

For both remote and supervised modes of administration (but particularly remote) you should follow up the results of the assessment and corroborate them with further information relating to each candidate’s results. The most effective and valuable source of corroboration is the feedback discussion. See the Feedback Skills section of this article for more details. Corroboration of all test-takers’ results may not be practical or possible in all assessment scenarios; but no decisions should be based solely on the results of psychometric personality assessment.

Why an ‘Exploration Discussion’?

Personality questionnaires are most effective when the profile generated is then fed back to the individual. This discussion is often called a ‘feedback session’. However, this term is somewhat misleading, as the main objective of the session is not simply to feed back the profile produced from the individual’s responses to the questionnaire. Although it is best and ethical practice to reveal the results to the individual, more common or useful objectives for the session are:

To ‘check out’ or validate what the individual has said about themselves in their responses to the questionnaire.
To explore the information further and gather a greater depth of information about how they are likely to behave in the workplace.

The profile is therefore a starting point for the discussion. For this reason, we prefer to describe these sessions as ‘exploration discussions’ rather than simply feedback sessions.

An exploration discussion is therefore an opportunity for users to test hypotheses suggested by the CPQ profile by discussing them with the individual.

In selection, a personality questionnaire becomes a much more powerful tool when the results are used as the basis for a structured interview. The interview can be used to feed back the results and probe very deeply the traits, motivations, and values of the candidate and their typical behaviours.

In development, an exploration discussion is essential if the individual is to benefit from the self-reported information they have provided. A developmental discussion is useful to both the test user and individual in sharing and validating the results of the personality assessment, and then discussing the developmental implications.

Preparation for the Exploration Discussion

Before conducting an exploration discussion with the CPQ for the first time, users should carry out some preparation. This should involve the following:

Familiarisation with the meanings of the scales being fed back. It may be helpful to refer to the individual items that relate to each of the scales in the CPQ. You can contact us for more information about these.
Reviewing the individual’s profile and forming hypotheses about them which will need to be tested during the exploration discussion.
Thinking about how to present the feedback sensitively and constructively.
Making appropriate notes to act as a memory jogger during the exploration discussion (however, lengthy and detailed notes should be avoided as these are likely to be a distraction during the discussion).

Considering the individual’s profile helps to form predictions about how they are likely to react to the feedback. However, unfavourable feedback should not be avoided altogether. Participants should be encouraged to discuss limitations honestly but constructively.

Feedback Skills

Creating a rapport with the individual is critical in getting their active involvement in the exploration discussion. There are a number of interpersonal skills that will help to do this:

Showing active attention to the participant
Listening carefully to the individual
Using open, probing questions
Using a supportive and encouraging style

The Structure of the Discussion

Introduction

Before beginning the session, the test user should introduce, and set the context for, the exploration discussion. It is important that the individual is put at their ease as much as possible.

The introduction should cover the following points:

How long the session will last
The purpose of the session
Why the assessment was carried out
The link between the self-report information and other information
The interactive nature of the discussion
Questionnaires are very reliable but not completely infallible
Not related to ability but to how they see themselves
No right or wrong answers
Results compared to others (i.e. using a comparison group)
The boundaries of confidentiality – i.e. how the results will be used and who will see them. Also, how long they will be kept on file.

Discussing the Profile

The exploration discussion must be a two-way, interactive process. A rule of thumb is that the individual should be talking for roughly two thirds of the whole discussion. You can achieve this by asking lots of questions about the key scales, including follow up questions to their answers. Try to make the questions open ended to promote in depth answers from the candidates and avoid one word or yes/no answers. You can think of some of these questions beforehand, or use our Interviewer Report which includes example questions.

It should be remembered that scores in the typical range are equally as interesting as extreme scores and should not be ignored. Scores of 5 or 6 could mean that the individual has no particular preference or tendency or that they change according to the situation.

Interpretation Language

When describing results face-to-face or in writing there are certain phrases you must learn to include in your descriptions. These phrases ensure that you are describing the results in a clear, accurate and meaningful way.

All your interpretations of CPQ scores must include a reference to the following:

Self-report – “Your responses”, “You see yourself”
Status (reliability) of the results – “Indicates”, “suggests”, “may”
Norm comparison – “Compared to others”
Strength of tendency – “slight”, “strong”, “fairly”, “very”
Language of scale behaviours – do not only use scale labels to describe results as this might lead to misinterpretation

By using this language, you ensure that your descriptions of CPQ results remain true to the instrument and the way in which the scores have been arrived at.

Interpretation Examples

The examples below demonstrate the style of language you must adopt when describing CPQ results employing the essential key phrases.

“Your responses suggest that, compared to other managers, you see yourself as having a strong tendency to make decisions quickly”
“Compared to others you appear to see yourself as having a slight preference for working in a culture with a strong profit motive”
“You describe yourself as someone who likely has a tendency to experience self-doubt compared to other people”

You must use this style of language when describing results orally or in writing.

Clevry’s Feedback Reports

If you are not a trained user, or you do not have the time/resources to conduct feedback with each candidate individually, then fear not. Clevry’s platform automatically generates a range of feedback reports, some of which can be used for sharing feedback directly with candidates. Each report is designed for specific purposes, so please make sure you refer to our What Reports are Available? article to ensure that you only share reports designed for candidates themselves so as to aid comprehension and simplicity, as well as to reduce confusion or misinterpretation.