- IQ (and such) tests are very valid
- a 'skill' test is so, too, and more importantly: they add up.
- if you DO an interview, do it structured. Check for values (a
cultural clash is pretty hard to come over) and use the STAR method:
Situation; Task; Action; Result.
I'll elaborate a little on the STAR method, the others are clear I
think.
Make a list about situations and problems one is likely to encounter
in the new job. Then:
Situation: ask the participant to describe a relevant situation he has
been in in the past (previous job).
Task: let him explain what he had to do.
Action: Let him tell you what he did.
Result: and of course, what the results where.
Now rate how he did this on a scale, say 1-10. Do this for all
relevant tasks.
Note:
DONT let him/her make something up, and DONT ask them HOW they WOULD
react, but how they DID. Often ppl know theoretically how to respond,
but don't do it. It's hard for them to change the story, but they
might make something up if you give them the freedom to tell you what
they would do.
At the end, use the IQ test, the skill test and the final score from
the STAR interviews to make your decision. This is (scientifically)
the most valid way of hiring. Of course, a good pre-screening based on
the resumes is the basis for every hiring process ;-0
BTW what you seem to do is more or less a skill test. You could
improve it by writing down ratings, esp if you have several ppl there
doing the interview. It ensures you don't just choose the guy who was
interviewed last, just because you remember him best...
For the JIT interview we did have scores, about 10-15 different
parameters of evaluation for each question.