Resources: Blog

Psychological and psychometric testing in the workplace


It’s all in the mind

Recently, the South Australian government announced that two of its employees engaged as carers were found unsuitable to work with children, following the introduction of a new testing and screening process involving psychological testing.

Recently, the South Australian government announced that two of its employees engaged as carers were found unsuitable to work with children, following the introduction of a new testing and screening process involving psychological testing.

The new tests were introduced following the recommendations of the State’s Child Protection Systems Royal Commission report. As a result, all new applicants for positions as carers in South Australian residential care facilities are now required to undergo this testing. As at October 2017, 227 out of 350 existing carers had reportedly undergone the testing.

Whilst the testing regime has been introduced obviously with the intentions of protecting the interests of children in residential care, concerns have arisen as to the ramifications of the testing for employees (and prospective employees), particularly where it is found that they are not suitable to work with children.

The testing and screening process involves a face-to-face interview with a psychologist and is reported to include some rigorous questioning.

Of the two employees found unsuitable to work with children in a residential care environment by the South Australian government, one has been moved to an administration role, while the other is reported to be on extended leave.

This testing regime raises some interesting questions about the value of psychological testing for employers.


How much weight should employers give to psychometric and psychological testing?

Psychometric testing is a common tool used by recruiters to assess a candidate’s capabilities and behavioural tendencies. Candidates are usually sent a series of questions and, depending on their answers, are designated a particular category distinguished by certain characteristics.

Psychological testing usually involves a more in-depth interview-type process with a qualified professional who produces a report for an employer.

Before engaging in any kind of psychological or psychometric testing, employers should have a clear idea about what they are trying to achieve by requiring candidates or employees to be tested. If there is any uncertainty about the purpose of the testing or whether the objective can reasonably be achieved, psychological or psychometric testing may not be an appropriate recruiting tool for that employer.

Where there is a clear purpose, employers must then consider the method of testing and how much weight will be placed on the results.

If the testing has been conducted to assess an individual’s mental fitness to perform their duties, then the opinion of a qualified and experienced medical professional will be highly significant.

If, on the other hand, psychometric testing is more of a recruitment formality then it is unlikely to be determinative and may even be redundant.


Final comments

In summary – the appropriateness of psychological and psychometric testing should be carefully considered by an employer before any testing commences.

Employers should consider whether the testing is necessary in the first place and how much weight will be given to test results.


Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.


Similar articles

How a region banded together to improve employment standards

Group Effort

No employer operates in a silo – all employers operate in complex systems of interrelated stakeholders including employees, customers, other businesses, and regulators who enforce the laws that apply to the employer and their business.


Can a computer be the decision-maker in an adverse action decision?

I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that

As the functionality of HRIS increases and technology generally gets smarter, will an employer’s reliance on the recommendations or decisions of a HRIS put the employer at risk?


The risks of providing unfavourable or false references

You say it best when you say nothing at all

There are range of important considerations for those delivering references to take into account and often conflicting interests can creep into the equation.


FWC upholds objection to constructive dismissal claim

Construction zone

In order to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, an employee must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. One of the instances in which an employee may be “dismissed” from their employment is if they were forced to resign because of the employer’s conduct or course of conduct.


Court penalises accountant for involvement in employer’s failure to keep employee records

Put your records on

The Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) impose a number of obligations on employers with respect to the making and keeping of employee records and pay slips.


The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.