Copyright yle
The use of pseudo-scientific personality or self-assessment tests has grown rapidly at Finnish workplaces and recruitment companies in recent years, but some researchers find the trend problematic. Inkeri Koskinen, a philosopher of science and Academy Research Fellow at the University of Helsinki, has researched the phenomenon and found that workplace tests are often pseudoscience and lack a scientific foundation. "When I talk about the research, listeners often immediately start sharing their own experiences with workplace doctrines that are nonsense," Koskinen said. The tests and associated tools are seen by many companies as a means of tackling various problems — from finding a suitable interview candidate to addressing low morale — with market research firm FMI estimating that the sector is worth about 10 billion euros. But Koskinen notes her research has found that there is very little, if any, scientific evidence to back up the effectiveness of these tests, especially in cases where recruitment firms use their own tools to whittle down a list of applicants for an interview. "If we look at the 10 largest recruitment companies in Finland, only two of them seem to offer tests that are researched psychological tests, where a psychologist is required as the tester," Koskinen pointed out, adding that the tests and their methodology are trade secrets. "Even researchers cannot access them, and their effectiveness cannot be evaluated," she said. Koskinen did not have to look very far to find an example. Last year, Helsinki University started evaluating doctoral researchers using tests developed by Aon, a London-based research firm that specialises in human resources solutions. Applicants filled out an online test, which generated scores, but it was unclear what the scores actually meant. After criticisms from applicants and calls to review the process by researchers, the university stopped using the tests. "The openness required in science was not implemented at all. Many researchers found it offensive," Koskinen noted. Easy answers to difficult questions Two other researchers interviewed by Yle back up Koskinen's view on the prevailing use of these personality tests. Reima Launonen, a researcher of industrial engineering at Aalto University, said companies and organisations in Finland should be careful about becoming too swayed by the results of these tests. "Many models offer easy answers to difficult questions. They are commercially attractive, but their impact is often superficial,” he said, adding that important decisions should not be made on the basis of personality test results. Taru Feldt, a professor of psychology at the University of Jyväskylä, also agrees — adding that even the best tests can only provide a very limited amount of information about a person. "No matter how well validated a test is, it is only a small part of the whole. Much more important is who interprets the results and how they are used. The evaluator’s expertise is even more important than the test itself," Feldt said. She added that an individual's personality is never permanent, and can adapt based on the person's life circumstances and environment — something the tests fail to take into account. The DISC debate According to Inkeri Koskinen, the DISC self-assessment tool has become especially popular in recent years, but its use raises concerns. A DISC test measures four main behavioural styles — Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness — and gives people a colour-coded personality profile based on their answers to the 80 questions. "Dividing people into four colours is as valid as horoscopes or the humoral theory," Koskinen said. Hannu Häyrinen from MLP Modular Learning Process, which specialises in DISC analyses, told Yle that DISC is a very general term that often gets misused, especially as it is not a protected trademark. "There are free versions available online under the DISC name, whose reliability has not been studied," Häyrinen said, adding that the 'Everything DISC' assessment used by MLP has undergone scientific evaluation. "There is an extensive research report on this, which was published as a book. In addition, it has been evaluated in accordance with the model of the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA) and by DNV [Det Norske Veritas, a Norwegian certification body], which has granted it a certificate," she said. Häyrinen further noted that DISC should not be confused with a psychological test or a personality assessment. "When it comes to evaluating a person’s deeper traits, you need the expertise of a psychologist and, for example, tests developed by the psychological association. DISC is a lighter and more accessible way to talk about interaction," Häyrinen said. Koskinen responded by saying that DISC is not a peer-reviewed scientific assessment model. "Of course, these are marketed as highly scientific, and of course every company always has some impressive-looking certificate. But as far as I understand, all variations of DISC are pure pseudoscience — they divide people into four colour codes without any research basis," she said.
