Psychometric Tests in Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Asia, Australia, UK. Aptitude and Personality Tests for Recruitment, Selection and Development.
Aptitude Tests | Personality Tests | Psychometric Training | 360° Appraisal
Psychometric Assessment
Psychometric Tests and Psychometric Training from Organisational Psychologists
Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, China, Australia, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia & UK
 
 
Search
Email Us
Call Us
Sitemap
Australian Psychological Society Psychologist
  Home     Aptitude Tests     Personality Tests     Psychometric Training     360° Appraisal     Knowledgebase     Blog     Online Learning     Contact  
Psychometric Assessment Blog
 

Posts Tagged ‘choosing psychometric tests’

Types of Bias in Psychometric Test Translation

Friday, January 15th, 2010

Types of Bias in Psychometric Test Translation

With the demand and need for psychological tests increasing in various different cultures and countries, there has been much greater awareness regarding some of the issues that are associated with the development or adaptation of tests to be used in contexts and situations that may be different from which the test was developed for. This article focuses on one of the key aspects of translating tests, the types of bias that can occur.

When utilizing the test in a new cultural group, it is not quite as simple as directly translating the test, administering it and then comparing the results for its validity. There are a number of issues that need to be considered such as whether the area assessed with the test applies to the new culture or whether is may be biased towards that group and whether what is assessed by the test also has similar behavioral indicators? These are just some of the potential areas where bias can be found in the translation of tests and affect the validity of the test being utilized in the new context.

Van der Vijer & Hambleton (1996) differentiates between three distinct types of bias that may affect the validity of tests that have been adapted for different cultural contexts and these are construct biasmethod bias and item bias.

Construct bias occurs when the construct (e.g. personality) that is measured by the test displays significant differences between the original culture for which it was developed and the new culture where it is going to be utilized. These differences can occur in the way that the construct was formulated and developed as well as in the relevant behaviors that are associated with the construct. It is critical to examine whether the underlying theory of the test is subject to construct bias and this can be examined through the studies examining the construct and its associated behaviors in the context that it will be utilized in. If there are significant differences found in these studies, it may indicative that there is construct bias. Major revisions may be required to overcome this bias. If not, the validity of the test will be affected.

Method bias refers to factors or issues related to the administration of the test that may affect the validity of the test. Examples of areas that method bias can occur include social desirability, acquiescence response styles, the conditions in which the test was conducted and the motivation of the respondents. Across cultures, there potentially can be differences that can occur in these areas and these can affect the way that the respondents answer the items in the test. This potentially may lead to differences between found that can be erroneously attributed to cultural differences when in fact, these differences are the result of differences in the administration procedures. As a result, it is threat to the validity of tests that have been adapted for use in new cultures. Test developers also not only need to focus on the adaptation of the test itself but also need to be aware of issues regarding the implementation of the test in a new context.

Item bias is another source of bias that can occur in the translation of tests and these refer to biases that occur with the items in the test. This is usually the result of either poor translation choices for items or due to culturally inappropriate translations. For example, the phrase “kick the bucket” is essentially a phrase that referring to passing away in the Western context and is commonly known by most people in that culture; unfortunately, this phrase would have no meaning for people from cultures without any prior experience with that phrase. In this manner, a literal translation of that phrase would be a poor translation as it does not convey the correct meaning of the item. The items in the test need to be culturally equivalent, where the meaning of the items needs to be correctly translated so as to maintain the validity of the test in the new cultural context.

These are some of the biases that may occur during the translation of tests. Test developers will need to be aware of the sources of bias and take the appropriate measures to avoid these biases.

References:

Van der Vijer, F. and Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89-99.

Psychometric Training in Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and China
If you are serious about using psychometric tests properly then we recommend joining PsyAsia International’s Psychometric Assessment at Work Course which leads to a certificate of competence in Occupational Testing Level A and Level B from the British Psychological Society. The Course is run publically in Singapore and Hong Kong or in-house anywhere.
More details about BPS Level A and B in Singapore and Hong Kong

Online Psychometric Training – Worldwide
Alternatively, you might be interested in introductory Online Psychometric Test Training presented live by a registered psychologist. PsyAsia is offering a special fee of just US$12 for anybody who registers for the February online psychometric training course!
More details about online psychometric test training

Free Webinar – Identity Self-Perception Questionnaire

Monday, December 7th, 2009

Identity Psychometric Personality Questionnaire Webinar

Identity Psychometric Personality Questionnaire Webinar


Attendees will be introduced to this personality assessment which produces the most comprehensive assessment of personality on the market. Key decision-makers will also have an opportunity to trial Identity.

-Overview of the Identity Self Perception Questionnaire
-Scales of Identity
-Derived Psychological Models
-Identity Reports
-Identity Online
-Benefits of Identity
-Applications of Identity
-Comparison with other leading questionnaires
-Identity Accreditation

Click here to register

Psychometric Tests in Singapore

Friday, November 20th, 2009

The Market for Psychometrics in Singapore

There are so many Psychometric Tests on the market in Singapore now, the task of choosing the right one is not easy. Choice is always a good thing, however as humans we often look for easy or stereotypical ways of making those choices and they are not always the best ones to make. For example, a client of ours was preparing for an upcoming team-building session. He approached us asking if we had a certain test that he could use in that session. Our answer was that we don’t supply that test for various very good reasons. The client’s response was “but so many people use it”. This is a typical response.   Another potential client had been looking around in Singapore for Psychometric Personality Tests to use in his training sessions as an added benefit.  He categorically advised us that he was not interested in validity and was looking for something simple and cheap!  The reality here is that at best he is wasting his time and the time of those who will complete his tests.  At worst and most likely, his trainees will be led to believe things about themselves which frankly may not be true (reliable or valid!). 

Science, Psychology, Psychometrics and the Real World of Business

As busy professionals we often assume that if lots of other people are using a test it must be a good one. This is a huge mistake. Our evolution has programmed us to be seduced by glossy advertising materials and confident, friendly salespeople. On the other hand, we have a tendency to be turned off by less glossy scientific figures, statistics and perhaps psychologists such as myself who speak about the science and real value behind a test, its validity! Ultimately then, both our clients and ourselves as psychologists have problems to overcome!!

Psychologists have to be able to explain in more “glossy” terms about the technical properties of a test and our clients, usually the HR and aligned professions, are invited to turn their ears our way for a little while, just long enough to get the notion that there is more to a psychometric test than meets the eye!

Technical Properties of Psychometric Tests

When we talk of the technical properties of a psychometric test, we are referring to things such as its reliability and validity as well as how it was constructed. If a test is constructed well, it will take time. Not months, often years. The test will also evolve over time such that more and validity data will be added to its manuals. This process is costly, hence good tests cost money.

If you come across cheap tests, that should start to ring alarm bells. It’s possible to write a few questions on a napkin in a restaurant and call it psychometric and even try to sell it. If it looks good and the questions look relevant perhaps it will sell and gain a huge following. But how reliable is that test?

In other words, can it provide consistent measurement of your candidate? If your bathroom scales provide different results each time you weight yourself you take them back and say these are not reliable. Likewise with a test, you need to ensure that it is consistently assessing the constructs that it purports to assess. We often come across new clients who are shocked when we tell them that good personality tests often contain around 200 questions. However, buyer beware! We know that the longer the test, the more reliable the results (as long as it is not so long that the candidate falls asleep!).

An unreliable test can not be a valid test, hence reliability is a precursor to validity. However, validity is arguably the most important aspect of a test. You choose to use tests because you want them to illustrate where a candidate stands in terms of their ability or personality or in order to predict how your candidate will perform or behave in a job. The test’s ability to meet this need is referred to as validity.

Some tests on the market are simply more valid that others. In fact, one test in the past year has proven to be more valid than all other tests it was compared with on the market!  How come users stay with their current test then? Perhaps because of preference, habit, price, mass-following and so on. However, do ask yourself and your test supplier, how valid is your test – this is the single most important technical property in a psychometric test!

Sometimes tests which are more valid will be more expensive but this makes sense. If a test took a long time to develop, was developed well and by a reputable publisher and is based on well founded theories that have been researched internationally, then surely it is worth paying the extra as such a test will provide an excellent return on investment with its strong validity.

Training to use Psychometric Tests in Singapore 

Properly developed psychometric tests require proper training to be used competently. If your test supplier requires that you undergo very limited or no training, this is a reflection of the test as well as their lack of understanding of psychometrics. You need to understand the concepts referred to above, as well as error in testing and how to make decisions based on test results, let alone how to feed back results properly to candidates and decision-makers. The type of questions (i.e., forced choice versus rating scales) will also dictate how you can use the results – you need to be trained to understand this! In some parts of the world (South Africa for example), only psychologists can use psychometric tests. Whilst this is a strict rule, it has its logical basis in how easy it is for untrained professionals to use tests wrongly.

Purchasing Psychometric Tests in Singapore

You may also wish to consider where you purchase your tests from, particularly in Singapore. In recent years we have seen an influx of profiteers in the industry who seek to make money but lack any depth of understanding in psychometrics or psychology at work. This will change in time as psychology in Singapore develops. For now however, be wary of this and we suggest that you only purchase psychometric tests from fully registered organisational psychologists who have a firm grounding in personality, psychometrics and psychology at work and who are answerable to professional competence and ethics boards.  Many of those selling psychometric tests in Singapore are simply not answerable to anybody in terms of their conduct or competence.  You can therefore not be certain that any advice they provide is relevant, up-to-date or will work in your organisation.

There are many more things to be aware of when choosing psychometric tests in Singapore. We cannot entertain them all here due to space constraints. You may wish to look out for training courses in Psychometric Assessment such as our our Psychometric Assessment at Work training which leads to the internationally recognised British Psychological Society Level A and B Certificates of Competence in Occupational Testing.  Such courses will prepare you further for choosing the right test and therein avoid costly selection and development mistakes. Look for courses run by experts in psychometrics who are based in Singapore and hence have a strong understanding of test use aligned with local culture, laws and practice.

Note: some Singapore firms will ship in overseas trainers to run psychometric training.  We suggest you avoid this training reseller model given that the facilitator is based overseas and is thus likely to lack knowledge of the Singapore business/legal and cultural environment for Psychometric Testing.

This article is Copyright PsyAsia International Pte Ltd.
It was originally written for Human Resources Magazine in Singapore
A shorter version of the article appears in the magazine’s November 2009 issue

Why are there so many questions in personality tests?

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

For psychometric assessments to have utility and be effective when assessing people for various purposes, the assessment has to be reliable and valid for the situation.

All personality tests are not 100% accurate and measurement errors from a variety of sources can affect the results. The length (i.e. the number of items) of the assessment affects the reliabilty of the assessment and research has demonstrated that measurement errors are smaller in longer assessments than in shorter assessments. In addition, a larger number of items better represents the abstract characteristics that are being assessed. For example, when assessing personality, one cannot expect to obtain an accurate picture of an individual through a few questions, therefore more items are needed. It has to be noted that after a limit, increasing the number of items will not provide further increases to reliability as other factors such as fatigue will set in.

It is for this reason that good personality assessments will have a large number of items and therefore require some time for the candidates to complete the assessment (usually between 200-250 questions, taking around 30-40 minutes). Psychometric assessments that are shorter will tend to be less reliable and valid. With a large number of items, the reliability of the test will be better and in turn the validity of the assessment will be better too. Validity is all about predicting performance. So with high validity human resource professionals get a higher return on their investment.

Free Psychometric Training in Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong

Friday, October 16th, 2009

PsyAsia International, Asia’s leading independent provider of psychometric assessment products and training today announced a free psychometric test training workshop in three prime Asian locations in December.  The workshops will cover the basics in psychometric assessment, such as reliability, validity and error, along with pointers and discussion on how to choose the right psychometric test.  Courses will be facilitated by PsyAsia’s organisational psychologists who have at least an MSc in Organisational Psychology along with the British Psychological Society Level A and B Certificates of Competence in Occupational Testing.  PsyAsia’s psychometric training courses in Asia have been the subject of many years of positive reviews (many published at the website).  This course will bring best practice and an introduction to competence to those who would otherwise not realise the issues involved in testing due to the costs of regular training courses.

PsyAsia will charge registrants a small fee to reflect the company’s costs in running the training session.  The fee is just US$70 (SG$99/HK$550).  This covers a full buffet lunch in a top hotel along with day-long refreshments, handouts and a certificate of attendance.  However, PsyAsia will even refund this fee back to any participant who registers for one of the company’s psychometric accreditation courses within 6 months!

The dates are:
Hong Kong: 3 December 2009
Kuala Lumpur: 8 December 2009
Singapore: 9 December 2009

More information
Online Registration

Comparing psychometric test results between candidates

Monday, August 24th, 2009

The first thing to remember is that if you are using a purely ipsative personality test then you should not be comparing test results between candidates.  Ipsative tests are self-referencing – they are comprised of force-choice items.  They are useful in coaching, team-building and career guidance, but should not be used alone in recruitment and selection scenarios.

Some tests on the market, such as the Saville Consulting Wave or the Apollo Profile are joint normative-ipsative tests and these would be fine to be used to compare between candidates.  A normative test is one which allows the candidate to respond based on the strength of their agreement or disagreement with a statement. The end results are then compared with a group of similar others who have previously taken the test (the norm group). 

Purely normative tests such as the Identity Self-Perception Questionnaire would also be good to use for comparing candidates.  Aptitude tests are by their nature normative tests and hence can be used to compare between candidates. 

So, let’s assume that we have administered a normative personality assessment to two candidates and we are particularly interested in finding a candidate with a high tendency towards creative thinking.  We have decided to use a personality assessment alongside other means of assessment including an abstract reasoning test to assess this.  We ask  Lee and Jane to complete both of these tests.  These are their scores on the test scale of interest (presented in sten scores):

Lee
Creative thinking:8

Jane
Creative thinking:6

Now, keeping in mind that we would never use test results on their own to make a decision, let’s look at how most decision-makers would approach the above scenario based on test results alone for simplicity.

It obviously appears that Lee is somewhat better suited to the position than Jane.

However, in psychometric testing just as in any assessment procedure undertaken for Human Resources, there is always a chance of error.  In fact, it’s more than chance!  We know that error is always present. 

When interviewing somebody the error is present, when running an assessment center the error is also present.  Likewise, error is also present in the use of psychometric tests.  Given a desire to be scientific, reputable test publishers will actually assess their tests for error. 

One way of doing this is to ask a group of respondents to complete the test today and to invite them back a month later to complete the same test.  Ignoring practice effects (which are controlled for), the expectation is that there should be a strong relationship between how a candidate scored at time one and how they score at time two.  The idea is that test results should remain consistent over time.  Psychometricians refer to this as test-retest reliability.

We hope for high test-retest reliability and we really should be choosing tests which have proven high levels.  If we don’t we will have little confidence in test results and be very limited in terms of how we use them.

The assessment for error that shows us how much confidence we can have in test scores is referred to as the standard error of measurement (SEM).  It uses an equation to ascertain how confident we can be that a candidate’s test result is a reflection of their true score as opposed to their true score PLUS error.

The equation is very simple, it is just: Standard Deviation multiplied by the square root of 1 minus the test-retest reliability of the assessment.  If you don’t like statistics, sorry – they really are necessary to use tests competently!

If you choose a reputable test, often the publisher will quote the SEM in the test manual.  If not, you can use the equation above to calculate it.  You would use the standard deviation for your scale of interest taken from the manual alongside the test-retest from the manual (note…if your publisher fails to provide these figures you should probably not be using their tests!!). 

The point is that the lower the SEM (or the higher the test-retest reliability), the better.  Why?

Going back to Lee and Jane above.  If our test has an SEM of 1.5 STENS, this would mean that we are 68% confident that Lee’s true score for the creative thinking scale is between 6.5 and 9.5 (we add and subtract the SEM from the observed score).  It would also mean that we are 68% certain that Jane’s true score lies between 4.5 and 7.5 on the same test.

Now we can see that some doubt begins to arise as to whether the differences observed between the two candidates is as a result of a real score difference or an error difference (i.e., the true score for both candidates could be 7!).  We don’t want to make a mistake and choose the wrong candidate, so let’s now look at how we can compare the differences.

We can take this further and calculate something called the standard error of difference. This tells us how confident we can be that there is a true difference between the scores of the two candidates.  Because both candidates completed the same test, we use the following equation: SEdiff= the square root of (1.414 * SEM squared of the test in question). 

Let’s say that our test has an SEM of 1.5 STENS.  Using the SEdiff equation, we get a figure of 3.18 for the SEdiff. This represents our “critical figure”. It means that the difference between the candidate’s scores must be at least 3.18 before we can conclude there is a true score difference.

In our example, the difference between the candidate’s scores is only 2.  Hence we cannot conclude there is a true score difference.  The implication for selection is that we should not (everything else being equal) select one candidate over the other because, although we observe differences, the differences may not be true differences, they may be simply error differences.

Note that if we choose a more reliable test it will reduce the SEM.  So for example, if we have an SEM of 1 STEN, our SEdiff for the above example would be 1.19.  In this case, since the difference between the candidate’s scores is 2 STENS, we could conclude that there is a true difference.  We would be at least 68% certain and almost 96% certain.  We won’t go into degrees of certainty in this article, but the point is made!

In summary, do not compare candidate’s test results without a knowledge of the test’s reliability and standard deviation or in other words, do not ignore the SEM.  Every assessment technique has an error variable.  Competent users of psychometric tests will be aware of this and ensure they do not make the wrong selection decision or give incorrect development/careers advice on the basis on error rather than true score differences. 

This article is (C) 2009 PsyAsia International. Some websites have been given permission to post this article.  The article must always contain our copyright, publisher details and a live link to our website. Please do not violate these terms.

Saville Consulting Wave Psychometric Test Free Trial from PsyAsia

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

Saville Consulting Wave® Professional Styles measures motives, talents, preferred culture and competency potential in one dynamic online questionnaire. It is designed for use in both selection and development, transforming the assessment process with the sophisticated use of internet technology and powerful models of effectiveness in the workplace. This comprehensive global questionnaire measures the 4 clusters, 12 sections, 36 dimensions and 108 facets of the Wave hierarchical model. Average completion time is 40 minutes.

In a 2008 co-validation study, Wave Professional Styles, outperformed the OPQ32i, NEO-PI-R, Hogan Personality Inventory 16PF5 and 15FQ+ in predicting both work competencies and overall global measures of performance. Additionally the Wave outperformed tests that should not really be used in recruitment and selection, such as the MBTI and DiSC.

 wave_validity

For users, this higher validity enables:

  • better predictions of performance 
  • a stronger return on investment 
  • accurate identification and management of talent 
  • highly targeted coaching 
  • the development of a performance culture throughout an organization

For details of the scientific validation study, please click here.

We are pleased to offer a free trial of the Saville Wave Focus Styles Questionnaire to the major HR decision-maker in Asian organisations.  The trial is open until 15 August and to the first 100 applicants.  Please send your full details to our Psychometrics Team by clicking here.  Please provide the following:

Your full name:
Your corporate email address (free email accounts such as yahoo, gmail etc. not accepted):
Your job title:
Your company name:
Your location:

Kindly note that requests for trials from non-decision makers, those not based in Asia, those who provide inaccurate, fake date or non-corporate email addresses or those whose organisations have previously trialled the Wave will not be entertained.  Thank you for your understanding.

For details on professional training to use the Saville Consulting Wave, please click on the links below:
Psychometric Assessment at Work Course – BPS Level A and B – Asia
Saville Consulting Wave Conversion Course – Asia

Choosing a local distributor for psychometric tests

Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

One of the first things clients will want to know when choosing who to work with when ordering psychometric tests is “why should I choose xyz company”?

As the field of psychometrics continues to grow, overseas publishers are working hard to make inroads into local markets. Clients should therefore be wary of the expertise (or lack of it) in organisations that are distributing tests.

We firmly believe (as do publishers of high level tests such as the Saville Consulting Wave), that those in the best place to distribute psychometric tests are those who have a background in personality psychology and/or organisational psychology.  In fact this premise was shared by many reputable test publishers until relatively recently.

Greed and motivation to expand market share have taken over in many cases and some test publishers have delegated test distribution to non-psychologists or those with short-course qualifications in this area.

The downsides of this are tremendous. Not only does it threaten the very integrity of the test and the industry, but it brings into the fore concerns regarding malpractice and the like.

Registered Organisational Psychologists are registered with government bodies.  They therefore report to these bodies on issues involving competence.  In addition to their 6-10 years of training in psychology (i.e. as much as a medical doctor!), they are bound to undergo continuous professional development and must submit proof of this on an annual basis.  This means they need to attend high-level conferences, read peer-reviewed professional and academic journals and more.

Non-psychologists of course are not subject to any of the aforementioned. In fact, many clients who have come over to us from such distributors have entertained us with stories of gross negligence and incompetence of these “salespeople” who lack expertise and passion for the subject matter.  A couple of examples follow:

1. A client told us how when they contacted “******** Assessments” in Hong Kong and asked for more information on how the test has 95% predictive accuracy (as published on their website). They were told that this related to 2 things.  Firstly that the test has a sophisticated lie detection system and so is very accurate.  A psychologist will tell you this has nothing to do with predictive accuracy!  Predictive accuracy (or validity) is about using the test scores to predict work performance or something similar.

This same client was then told:

“The second form of predictive accuracy is construct validation which relates to the job prediction score”.

Again, a psychologist would point out that this salesperson is getting confused.  Construct validity and predictive validity are two different forms of validity.  Most importantly though, no psychometric test is 95% predictive!  Psychologists know that and if they claim any different they would be reported to their board and struck off!

Unfortunately, at no time was this client provided with hard-data or evidence that this test (which is based on a theory that has not been peer-reviewed and has not been independently tested in Asia or Australia) actually predicts meaningful workplace behaviours and performance.

2. Another client told us how they contacted a non-psychologist distributor of another test brand in Singapore.  They asked for information about impact of dyslexia on aptitude test scores and also wanted to know about the comparison between certain tests within that brand and those of the competition.  This distributor had no idea there and then, and said he would need to go away and find out.  A psychologist would not need to do this.  Unless the client is asking about an obscure test, Psychologists are trained to have the answers.

As we know, there are many things to consider when choosing the right psychometric test.  Issues such as reliability, validity, norm groups, standard error of measurement, cost versus validity (ROI), report options, online assessment options and so on.  This short article has added to that list and suggested that the background and currency of the people in the distributorship are also important.

To cast doubt aside, it is best to work with distributors who have demonstrated their passion in psychology and psychometrics through years of training in the subject along with years of experience. Choose those holding full registration as psychologists with government/professional bodies who must undergo professional development on a continual basis.  Purchasing psychometric tests from non-psychologists may amount to asking a private pilot to fly a jumbo jet.  They may be able to get it off the ground (”may”!), but what happens when they encounter problems or when they try to land??!!!

 
 
Archives
Recent Articles
Categories
Tags
Aptitude Tests
Professional Aptitudes
Work Aptitudes
Operational Aptitudes
Commercial Aptitudes
Customer Aptitudes
Administrative Aptitudes
Practical Aptitudes
Swift Analysis Aptitude
Swift Comprehension Aptitude
Swift Technical Aptitude
Personality Tests
Saville Consulting Wave®
Saville Consulting Wave Professional Styles
Saville Consulting Wave Focus Styles
Saville Consulting Wave Types
Wave Entrepreneurial Potential
Saville Consulting Wave Job Profiler
Saville Consulting Performance Card Set
Saville Consulting Wave Performance 360
Wave Employee Development
Wave Performance Culture
Identity Personality Questionnaire
Identity For Education
The Apollo Profile
Apollo Select Candidate Screening System
Psychometric Training
Psychometric Test Administration Course (with optional BPS Certification)
BPS Level A and B Training (British Psychological Society Certification)
Introduction to Psychometric Tests
Apollo Profile Accreditation Course
Identity Questionnaire Accreditation Course
Saville Consulting Wave Conversion Course
Saville Consulting Wave Full Training
Free Psychometric Mini-Series
Apollo Profile Online Learning
Online Learning Centre - Psychometric Assessment Category
Dates for Psychometric Assessment Courses
Online Psychometric Test Systems
Apollo Profile
Identity Personality Questionnaire
Saville Consulting Oasys™
Test Administrator Network
Bureau Scoring Service
Psychometric Test Candidates
Best Practice in Psychometrics
Psychologist-on-Call™
360° Performance Appraisal
Knowledgebase & Journals
Blog
Online Learning
Search
Email Us
Call Us
Sitemap
 
  Copyright © 2001-2010 PsyAsia International Pte. Ltd. A Psychology1 Group Site. All rights reserved.
  Psychometric Tests, Aptitude Tests & Personality Tests in Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, China, Pakistan,
  India, Thailand, Brunei, Dubai, UAE, Qatar, Australia, UK, USA and more!