Participants assume the role of an Administrative Assistant in the Marketing Department of Somersby Books Ltd, a mediumsized publishers. Having been with the company for 6 months, and keen to make their mark, the Participant is producing a sales analysis for the Marketing Manager in time for the forthcoming product catalogue meeting. The Participant is required to analyse data and make a recommendation as to which titles to exclude from the catalogue and which alternative titles to incorporate.
***Translated – Available in alternative languages***
This exercise has been designed based on Business Functions - Administration but can be used for all sectors and functions.
Why should you use this assessment?
This type of assessment is also called a job simulation or work simulation exercise as it can offer a realistic simulation of the skills required for a role. All you have to do is ensure it matches the skills or competencies you are looking to assess and is at the right level for the role you are recruiting for. Using this type of exercises help hiring decision-makers:
improve objectivity and minimize biases from interviews and
deliver constructive feedback to candidates improving their experience.
Not sure if this is the right assessment? Send us an uptodate job description including competencies that are critical to succeed in the role. We will send you our recommendations or discuss this with you.
****Talent Grader sources these exercises from our trusted partners to offer as part of the consultancy services. You do not need to be trained to use these exercises as we will support you in assessing your candidates and provide you with a detailed report, saving you time and effort. If you are a trained assessor, please contact us to purchase the assessment only and we will set you up as an assessor to mark the exercise. ****
Key Information
Paper, Online - desktop / tablet
75 mins
English (AUS), English (UK), English (US)
Free trial : No No training required to use
Attention to Detail, Judgement, Planning and Organisation, Problem Analysis
We are committed to ensuring all our assessments are accessible and inclusive to our assessment participants. The virtual assessment centre exercises allow participants to change the font size, zoom in and out. The assessments’ duration can be adjusted to meet individual participant needs.
Whilst all our assessment platforms allow you to use screen reader, the virtual assessments are not compatible with the screen readers. Please discuss your individual needs with us so we can provide you the guidance and support necessary.
Data Protection
We maintain Personal Data, exam data, and Licensee Updates on secured computers and all Clients, exam candidates, and employer accounts are password protected.
To determine the appropriate retention period for Personal Data, we consider the amount, nature and sensitivity of the Personal Data, the potential risk of harm from unauthorised use or disclosure of your Personal Data, the purposes for which we process your Personal Data, whether we can achieve those purposes through other means, and the applicable legal, regulatory, tax, accounting or other retention requirements.
Unless agreed otherwise, we may use your Personal Data after anonymization (so that it can no longer be identified as your information) for research or statistical purposes, in which case we may use this information for a reasonable period of time without further notice to you. We may also use your Personal Data as part of statistical, aggregated data for research purposes in a pseudonymized form, if approved by our Client. Click here to see our privacy policy.
Cost exc. tax
Request pricing
What's included
Advice and support in choosing the right assessments
Invites and reminders to candidates
Assessment of candidate responses by trained assessors
This report summarises overall performance on the exercise and provides detailed feedback for each competency assessed. Recruiter’s job is made easy as this report can be used for making selection and development decisions. This report enhances candidate experience with objective and useful feedback.
<p>&bull; 6500+ Job Specific Formulas &bull; 175 Job Performance Impact Traits &bull; 25+ Years Research &amp; Validation &bull; Advanced Assessment Technology &bull; High ROI &bull; Easily Customized &bull; Reports Specific to Person and Job &bull; 29+ Languages &bull; No Adverse Impact</p>
<p>The Harrison Assessments System provides a comprehensive assessment of the behavioural competencies required for a position and accurately predicts success and potential obstacles. Integrated selection tools include performance based interviewing questions, how to attract the candidate, and the ability to calculate eligibility, suitability, and interview ratings for a composite ranking of candidates.</p>
<p>The assessment is web-based and scored online with comprehensive results available within 15 seconds.</p>
<p><strong>Enjoyment Performance Theory:&nbsp;</strong> Enjoyment Performance Theory states that an individual will perform more effectively in a job if they enjoy the tasks required by that job, have interests that relate to the position, and have work environment preferences that correspond with the environment of the workplace. Harrison Assessment&rsquo;s global research indicates that the enjoyment of these various aspects of a job is highly correlated with good performance. &quot;If you enjoy an activity, you tend to do it more. By doing it more, you tend to learn and improve the related skills. As a result, you tend to gain recognition (including self recognition) which helps you enjoy the activity more.&quot;</p>
<p>Candidates rank answers in order of what you they&nbsp; know enjoy. Enjoyment performance theory states that if someone enjoys 75% of the tasks required in a job role they are 3x more likely to be successful.</p>
<p><strong>Paradox Theory:&nbsp;</strong>Harrison Assessment&rsquo;s Paradox Theory provides a greater depth of psychological understanding because it reveals an entire system of behaviour rather than merely offering insights about specific traits. It also predicts stress behaviour and provides a framework that facilitates objective understanding of self and a clear direction for self-development.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Eligibility/Suitability</strong></p>
<p>The ability to predict job performance is dependent upon identifying all of the critical factors. If one assesses eligibility or technical competencies, it only represents a portion of the critical factors to predict performance. When behavioural competencies are also measured, such as emotional intelligence, personality, and work preferences, a high degree of accuracy is attained to predict performance.</p>
<p>Note:&nbsp;No training required use the assessment as we will support you in administering and delivering the reports to you. should you wish to manage this process yourself, we would be able to offer the training.</p>
Bias results when test performance is affected by unintended factors and those factors are not evenly distributed between groups. This results in group differences in test performance that are not related to the constructs the test is intended to measure. For example, a test of numerical reasoning that uses a lot of text may be biased against people who have English as an additional language. Group differences do not result from different levels of numerical reasoning ability, but from questions being more difficult for some due to their use of language.
Test developers may address bias through some or all of the following:
. Providing a clear rationale for what the test is, and is not, intended to measure
· Reviewing content to ensure it is accessible and free from complex language
· Ensuring scoring is automated and objective (i.e. free from user bias)
· Providing evidence of any group difference in test scores
· Examining the effect of group membership on individual questions – sometimes referred to as ‘differential item functioning’ or ‘dif’
· Ensuring norm groups used for comparisons are representative of the populations they reflect
· Providing guidance on using the reports and interpreting constructs measured
Reliability is an indicator of the consistency of a psychometric measure (Field, 2013). It is usually indicated by a reliability coefficient(r) as a number ranging between 0 and 1, with r = 0 indicating no reliability, and r = 1 indicating perfect reliability. A quick heads up, don’t expect to see a test with perfect reliability.
Reliability may refer to a test’s internal consistency, the equivalence of different versions of the test (parallel form reliability) or stability over time (test-retest reliability). Each measures a different aspect of consistency, so figures can be expected to vary across the different types of reliability.
The EFPA Test Review Criteria states that reliability estimates should be based on a minimum sample size of 100 and ideally 200 or more. Internal consistency and parallel form values should be 0.7 or greater to indicate adequate reliability, and test-retest values should be 0.6 or greater.
Most test scores are interpreted by comparing them to a relevant reference or norm group. This puts the score into context, showing how the test taker performed or reported relative to others. Norm groups should be sufficiently large (the EFPA Test Review Criteria states a minimum of 200) and collected within the last 20 years. Norm groups may be quite general (e.g. ‘UK graduates’) or more occupationally specific (e.g. ‘applicants to ABC law firm’).
A key consideration is the representativeness of the norm group and how it matches a user’s target group of test takers. It is therefore important to consider the distribution of factors such as age, gender and race in norm groups to ensure they are representative of the populations they claim to reflect. This is particularly important with norms claiming to represent the ‘general population’ or other wide-ranging groups. Occupationally specific norms are unlikely to be fully representative of the wider population, but evidence of their composition should still be available.
Validity shows the extent to which a test measures what it claims to, and so the meaning that users can attach to test scores. There are many different types of validity, though in organisational settings the main ones are content, construct and criterion validity. Reference may also be made to other types of validity such as face validity, which concerns the extent to which a test looks job-relevant to respondents.
Content validity relates to the actual questions in the test or the task that test takers need to perform. The more closely the content matches the type of information or problems that a test taker will face in the workplace, the higher its content validity. For tests such as personality or motivation, content validity relates more to the relevance of the behaviours assessed by the test rather than the actual questions asked.
Construct validity shows how the constructs measured by the test relate to other measures. This is often done by comparing one test against another. Where tests measure multiple scales, as is the case with assessments of personality and motivation, it is also common to look at how the measure's scales relate to each other.
Criterion validity looks at the extent to which scores on the test are statistically related to external criteria, such as job performance. Criterion validity may be described as 'concurrent' when test scores and criterion measures are taken at the same time, or 'predictive' when test scores are taken at one point in time and criterion measures are taken some time later.
Construct and criterion validity are often indicated by correlation coefficients which range from 0, indicating no association between the test and criterion measures, and 1, indicating a perfect association between the test and criterion measures. It is difficult to specify precisely what an acceptable level of validity is, as this will depend on many factors including what other measures the test is compared against or what criteria are used to evaluate its effectiveness. However, for criterion validity, tests showing associations with outcome measures of less than 0.2 are unlikely to provide useful information and ideally criterion validity coefficients should be 0.35 or higher. The samples used for criterion validity studies should also be at least 100.
Overall, whilst a publisher should provide validity evidence for their test, validity comes form using the right test for the right purpose. Therefore, users need to use available validity evidence to evaluate the relevance of the test for their specific purpose.
Please ensure you add the cost of the product (from the cost section) first before adding any of the reports, additional materials or any other costs.
You can add a report even if it is free or £0. This will ensure our supplier is aware of your requirements fully. Please contact us if you have any queries.
We are pleased to know that you found this review ‘useful’. To help us maintain the trust of our user community, please use the following login options.
+447730444949
renu@talentgrader.com