IndexPsychometric Assessments and PropertiesTraining and DevelopmentDiscussion Scientist PerspectivesPractitioner PerspectivesRole of Psychometric Assessments in Managing Employee Development PerformanceCorrespondence between Employee and TrainingConclusionThe use of psychometric assessments has grown rapidly in recent 15 years, with great focus on employee selection and development. However, the gap between scientists and practitioners had raised different perspectives on the usefulness of such assessments in employee development. Scientists have proposed that psychological constructs are not quantifiable and any attempt to measure them is fraught. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayIn contrast, the professional suggests that anything that adds value to the client's development has value. The overall concern is that it is unclear how the scientist-practitioner model is actually translated into real-world behavior. This article examines this debate from both perspectives and discusses possible future directions for bridging the gap by educating professionals with more resources to utilize. Industrial organizational psychology (IO) by definition is the application of psychological principles, theories and research to the work context. With the increase in the use of psychometric assessments over the past fifteen years (McDowall & Redman, 2017), the works of IO Psychology have come under intense scrutiny. More specifically, it was unclear how well the research done by scientists translated into terms applicable in real-world context for practitioners. This refers to the introduction of the scientist-practitioner model after the Second World War, which also formed the basis of the work of I-psychologists. On the one hand, scientists are continuously searching for better methodologies, such as improving the validity and reliability of psychometric testing methods. On the other hand, practitioners have focused on application methods to simplify the modus operandi of organizations. The consequences of a divide between scientists and practitioners is that it often results in the development of irrelevant theories and the use of invalid practices. Ones, Kaiser, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Svensson (2017) also reported trends of unhealthy obsession with publishing journal articles that do not address the practical element required in the real world. This gap between the attention of scientists and practitioners has been extensively explored especially in the area of ​​employee development assessments (Moyle & Hackston, 2018; Chamorro-Premuzic, Winsborough, Sherman, & Hogan, 2016; Furnham, 2008). Employee development is defined as “an integrated set of planned programs, delivered over a period of time, to ensure that all individuals have the skills necessary to achieve their maximum potential in support of the organization's objectives” (Jacobs & Washington, 2003). Furthermore, with the recent attempt to question the validity of quantifying psychological constructs (Michell, 2008), the usefulness of such assessments is now being called into question. In this article, psychometrics and training will first be defined, followed by a review of the debate from both ends of the scientist-practitioner perspective, and finally a discussion of the role of these assessments in employee development. Assessments and Psychometric Properties As mentioned in lesson 4, psychometric assessments are measurement methods designed to provide a quantitative assessment of one or morebehavioral attributes. They often involve collections of questions or items that are administered and scored in a standardized way, interpreted in a standardized format, and constructed in line with psychometric principles. Psychometric assessments are used to measure job-specific skill areas that are not accurately assessed by other methods. As a result, it improves the objectivity of the selection process, reduces selection errors and long-term organizational costs, and improves the chances of hiring productive, high-performing personnel. These, in the practitioners' view, are the strengths of using psychometric assessments and are justifications for using them in organizational contexts where costs are major concerns. Consequently, psychometric assessments have been used in organizations for selection, promotion, realistic job preview, training needs analysis. and results evaluation, team building and professional consultancy. There are large series of assessments that measure different psychological attributes, such as personality and cognitive abilities, for various purposes. Just to name a few widely known assessments, there are the Stanford-Binet test and the Emotional Intelligence Test, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1943), Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers, 1962; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998), Big Five model of personality assessments and 360-degree feedback tools. Training and development Training refers to the systematic acquisition of skills, concepts or attitudes resulting in improved performance in another environment (from lesson 6) . It has also been stated that the ability to learn forms the fundamental basis of training programmes. There are three broad categories of learning outcomes: cognitive, skill-based, and affective outcomes. In training and development, it is vital that these outcomes are achievable and impart skills that are transferable to their work. However, it is also important to consider an employee's holistic development, as their overall well-being would have an effect on their work performance. Discussion Scientist Perspectives Scientists have always been thought to be interested only in methodology and therefore are constantly coming up with improved versions of previous theories and models in an attempt to fill some gaps. These gaps include low reliability and validity, lack of evidence of norms, and cross-cultural applicability (Furnham, 2018). Therefore, it can be inferred that scientists are well equipped with knowledge and know which assessment should be used when the criteria change. Scientists' criteria for choosing a particular assessment would therefore primarily revolve around the reliability and validity of the test itself. Current updated assessments, such as the MBTI, demonstrate significant test-retest reliability (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998), and the Five-Factor Model (FFM) shows incremental validity (Furnham, Jensen, & Crump, 2008). However, in light of this, scientists have begun to question the ability to quantify psychological constructs, as the presumption that the psychological attribute has a quantitative structure has never been tested or questioned (Michell, 2008). This is a bold challenge for the world of psychometrics as it is likely to overturn most existing psychometric assessments and, as a result, remains a challenge for academia. Similarly in science, the existence of arbitrary units demonstrates a lack of ability to quantify all parameters. Moreover, they also revised the term and thethey changed to the unit defined by the procedure. Aubrecht, French, and Iona (2011) had also recognized that all units are arbitrary due to the fact that number systems are anthropocentric. To this nihilistic view that many attributes now seem illusory, Barrett (2011) recognized the value of settling for a fuzzy order measurement since most psychometric data are represented in terms of orders and not real numbered continuous magnitudes. As long as the hypothesis of the ability to quantify psychological attributes remains untested and presumed true, it is necessary to accept it and make assumptions to remain relevant (Barrett, 2011). Practitioner Perspectives On the other hand, it is unclear how practitioners make their choices about assessments – likely giving priority to factors such as cost, ease of administration, and familiarity with a particular test. Furnham and Schofield (1987) found that most practitioners were satisfied with the Barnum effect from testing based on how their clients reacted to the test profiles. McDowall and Redman (2017) analyzed practice and industry trends and found that 80.5% of participants choose familiarity, which is the highest among all other options, as their reason for choosing which psychometric assessment to use . Far behind, in second place, is the basis obtained from literature reviews (McDowall and Redman, 2017). Practitioners often cite lack of access to academic literature as a reason for not practicing with scientific evidence. However, it is not well known to practitioners that research databases such as EBSCO have removed barriers to access, with the intent of promoting science-based practices. Surprisingly, Furnham (2018) in his study also found that test buyers, or presumably practitioners, are examining important psychometric properties such as reliability and validity. This may highlight an important transition of professionals placing more value on scientific evidence. The Role of Psychometric Assessments in Employee Development Performance Management Logically, the natural argument would be to identify poor performing individuals and send them to training programs. The main question would then be who is the right person to choose for development programs. Psychometric assessments can also serve to measure employee performance. These include judgmental assessments such as 360-degree feedback. From the feedback, information is gathered from the employee's superiors, peers and subordinates and can be used to identify what training needs this employee may have. Although 360-degree feedback has been shown to be rated as the least practical of the other twelve assessments (Burnham, 2008), it has also been rated as the few with the greatest validity (Burnham, 2008). In this case it may not be truly reflective of its actual practicality, as there may be other factors influencing this outcome. Furnham and Jackson (2011) found that the age of professionals predicted the practical application of tests and that educational qualifications predicted the usefulness of psychological tests. It is helpful to find practical steps from the literature that practitioners can adopt. Using these findings, for example, it is crucial to ensure that practitioners are trained in the use of relevant psychological tests. This way, they can better administer tests to their employees. Furthermore, there are two types of measurements: normative measurements and ipsative measurements. The first produces data that discriminates characteristics between individuals and variables providing us with normal distributions, and the second discriminatesbetween individuals and variables. Both are valid and important for development, where normative measures tell us where an individual stands relative to others and ipsative measures evaluate an individual's traits. Additionally, ipsative measures can be used to compare to one's previous results to illustrate improvement or progress. between employee and training There are two main categories of ratings: peak performance and typical performance. The former tests your abilities to see what is the best you can do, while the latter measures how you prefer to act in a particular situation. With this collected data, professionals are able to translate it into employees' learning ability and their preferred learning methods. For example, if the employee tends towards extroversion, training programs conducted in groups may be more attractive to these employees. Therefore, the information can reveal to the organization which employee to send for a particular type of training program. In other words, try to find the best match between employee and training. Self-Awareness Moyle and Hackston (2018) summarized it well in their recent publication on personality tests such as MBTI and Strengths. Finders are not predictive of performance, but rather facilitate self-reflection and therefore better self-awareness. These are practical so as to help employees be clearer about their behaviors and also understand the performance implications. Self-awareness has been shown to have positive implications such as increased job satisfaction and enthusiasm and improved relationships and communication with colleagues (Sutton, Allinson, & Williams, 2013). In a sense, self-awareness serves as a starting point and also as a catalyst to ensure that planned development programs are relevant to oneself. Judgment ratings such as Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) can also help employees recognize which behaviors are causing them to underperform. Scientists have also argued that 360-degree feedback has major limitations, such as contamination of feedback due to competitive, affiliative, collaborative, and revenge motives (Pavur and Lepard, 1997), as well as lack of training on the part of raters to provide quality feedback. . It tends to produce a series of feedbacks that seemingly reflect discrepancies in the individual. However, Hazucha, Hezlett, and Schneider (1993) also demonstrated the value of “discrepancy awareness” as part of self-awareness and therefore an opportunity for development. These discrepancies more holistically evaluate an individual and reveal gaps that may be present. Regardless of whether the training need is for interpersonal skills or job-related skills, it would still be beneficial to develop your employees holistically. It demonstrates an organization's concerns for the well-being of employees and also their personal growth, instead of seeing employees as a tool to make money. This can help strengthen their commitment and loyalty over time. Opportunities for Goal Setting It is critical to ensure that the results obtained from psychometric assessments are well interpreted in ways that are easy for the employee to communicate and understand. As suggested by Moyle and Hackston (2018), what we do with the results is much more important and has much more value than the results themselves. This way, once gaps are identified, the professional and employee can set smarter goals as part of the short- and long-term development plan. From time to time, review..