Module 4: Reports and Feedback

In this module, we'll give an overview of the reports we have on offer, how to link scales and how to give feedback using the reports.

 

 

(Click a report heading below to dive deeper into the report.)

Reports Overview

 

Scale Interpretation

It is important to be clear on what each scale is measuring before attempting to interpret the score.

Detailed scale descriptions are shown on Clevry when creating your questionnaire, and can also be found in Clevry Personality Scales Library article.

Social Desirability Scale

What does this scale measure? 

Social desirability is made up of both impression management and self-deception. It is unconscious and linked to self-awareness, and building a favourable self-image.

Special care must be taken when interpreting scores on the social desirability scale (or impression management scale). If the scale indicates a high level of social desirability, we cannot:

• Assume that the respondent has deliberately faked their responses, the respondent may have answered honestly.
• Screen out the candidate as research has shown that for some roles social desirability is positively correlated with job performance e.g. sales roles.
• Adjust scores on other scales as this would be arbitrary, especially since a high social desirability score can arise for several reasons.

If the scale indicates a high level of social desirability, we can:

• Be even more rigorous than usual in collecting concrete evidence to corroborate the information the candidate has self-reported by:
  • Asking probing, concrete, past-tense questions during the subsequent exploration discussion.
  • Comparing the profile with the results of other personality assessments, such as simulation exercises.

We recommend that social desirability scores are not fed-back to candidates (or assessors in the case of an assessment centre) since they are very susceptible to misinterpretation. The social desirability scale is best treated as a guide for interpretation that is for your use only.

 

Linking Scales

 

One way to interpret personality profiles is by reading and thinking about the scales one by one. However, a more sophisticated approach is to consider how a selection of scales might interact and how this will impact the candidate’s behaviour.

For example, if we see an individual with a STEN score of 9 on the scale 'Direct', we can start to make inferences about how their preference might impact their interpersonal behaviour e.g. likely to be candid when voicing opinions rather than adopting a more cautious approach.

This is interesting on its own, however when we pair it with another scale it can lead to a much richer impression of the person.

For example, if we can also see that this person has a STEN score of 2 on the 'Listening' scale, we now also know that they have a strong preference for talking and place less emphasis on making time to listen to others. Depending on the job role, this might be a cause for concern. Whereas, if they had scored an 8 on Listening, we could infer that they see themselves as someone who takes time to consider the opinions of others. So, whilst they are direct when voicing their opinions, they are likely to have taken time to listen to others first.

As you continue to add scores to your thinking or ‘daisy-chain’ the scales you can build up hypotheses about a candidate that you can then ‘check out’ in the exploration discussion. The hypotheses would vary depending on the role but examples could include how the scales interact to impact on customer service style, or project planning etc. This method can take some practice but is a rewarding way to utilise the data.

 

Giving Feedback to Candidates

A personality questionnaire becomes a much more powerful selection or development tool when results are used as the basis for a structured discussion. An exploration discussion can be used to gain a deeper insight into a candidate’s traits, motivations and values. It gives you a chance to delve into the results. It is therefore important that the discussion is done in the right way, to support the candidate and gather the most accurate information you can.

Remember the main objectives of an exploration discussion are:

• To ‘check out’ or validate what the candidate has said about themselves in their responses to the questionnaire
• To explore the information further and gather more details about how they are likely to behave in the workplace

What language should I be using?

It is important to use language that emphasises the following:

• The tool uses self-report to measure personality - “Your responses”, “You see yourself”
• The status (reliability) of the results - “Indicates” “suggests” “may”
• The questionnaire is scored using norm comparison - “Compared to others”
• The way you describe the strength of tendency should be consistent - “slight” “strong” “fairly” or “very”
• Language of scale behaviours - Do not use scale labels to describe results, instead there are comprehensive descriptions included in most reports

Examples

“Your responses suggest that, compared to other graduates, you have a fairly strong tendency to be candid and be direct in expressing your opinions.”

“You describe yourself as someone who tends to experience self-doubt compared to other people”

“Compared to others you may see yourself as having a slight preference for working in a culture with a strong profit motive”

How do I conduct an exploration discussion?

1. Prepare
2. Break the ice and build rapport
3. Introduce the session
4. Ask open, probing questions
5. Follow up and reflect on aspects of their answers
6. Repeat 4 & 5 as necessary
7. Summarise the key insights
8. Ask if the candidate has any questions
9. Close and thank the candidate

Keep in mind that this is just a guideline, as long as you have achieved the aims of a feedback discussion and communicated the best practice principles (found at the start of every report) throughout, you can structure the discussion however you want.

 

Preparing for the discussion

Through thorough preparation, you will get the most out of your discussion with the candidate.

• Read the report thoroughly
• Familiarise yourself with the scale meanings, not just the scores
• Review the profile and form hypotheses
• Build a narrative by linking scales together*
• Consider how to approach feeding back sensitive areas
• Make appropriate notes to use while you have a discussion

All reports have been made with a specific audience in mind, with some directed towards the candidate themselves and others exclusively for managers or recruiters. We advise that clients give candidates the personal feedback report, which is less open to misinterpretation regardless of which report they are relying on to facilitate the discussion.

 

How to introduce the discussion

The candidate needs to be clear on why you are discussing before you begin. Make sure you outline what the exploration will consist of before you begin by covering the following:

• Length, purpose and interactive nature of the discussion
• Why they were asked to complete the assessment
• What assessment they have completed and what it measures
• The self-report nature of personality questionnaires.
• There are no rights or wrongs, the assessment measures tendencies and preferences, not ability
• Reliability of the results
• How the questionnaire is scored, including specific information on which norm group has been used
• Boundaries of confidentiality

 

Building Rapport

Creating rapport with an individual is critical in getting their active involvement in the exploration discussion. When you first meet the candidate remember to introduce yourself and have a short conversation to break the ice.

During the discussion itself, several interpersonal skills will help you to build a relationship. Demonstrate you are listening carefully to the individual by showing active attention towards them. This could include using both verbal and non-verbal cues such as nodding, keeping eye contact and back channelling (e.g. saying ‘mmm’ or ‘I see’ to indicate you are interested in what is being said). Try to maintain a supportive and encouraging style, through an open posture and non-judgemental demeanour, remaining empathetic to whatever the candidate has to say. Aim to ask open questions, that aren’t leading in nature, and ensure you let the candidate answer fully. If you do wish to ask a follow-up question wait until they have finished their whole train of thought before doing so.

 

Examples of active listening

Summarising back

Describe what you understand from what the person last said:
• ‘So, what you’re saying is…’
• ‘How you see it is that…’
• ‘It sounds to me like…’

 

Reflecting back

Describe the feelings or emotions you pick from what the person has just said:
• ‘You seem unsure…’
• ‘That must have been very exciting…’
• ‘You sound like you felt anxious…’

As well as helping to show you are listening, phrases like this are helpful to correct any misunderstanding from both parties, punctuate the discussion, and provide structure to the conversation.

 

Tips for asking questions

• Ask open and past-tense questions
• Remember to follow up with probing questions based on their responses
• Use pauses to facilitate further explanation

You should avoid asking leading questions and multiple questions as you are more likely to influence what the candidate says with your own opinions. Make sure to wait until they have answered fully before asking a follow-up question.

For example:

“The results suggest that, compared to others, you have a strong tendency to accentuate the positive and expect things to turn out for the best...”

A leading question

“…Do you think this is because, in past management positions, you have had to set an example for others in your office and keep morale high?”

A better alternative

“…The results suggest that, compared to others, you have a strong tendency to accentuate the positive and expect things to turn out for the best. Can you think of an example of this in your past positions?”

Multiple questions

“…Do you agree? Do you think this is always the case? Can you think of a situation where you tend to anticipate problems more than benefits?”

A better alternative

Ask one of these questions and wait for a response before asking the next.

 

What about ability tests?

A feedback discussion around ability tests should be approached in a similar way to personality questionnaires, taking care to describe norm groups and the infallibility of scores. The key best practice principles are also outlined at the beginning of the ability test report.

Ability test scores should be fed back verbally where possible, using descriptions rather than numbered scores. Reports should not be given to candidates as they are easily misinterpreted.