Psychometric Tests in Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Asia, Australia, UK. Aptitude and Personality Tests for Recruitment, Selection and Development.
Aptitude Tests Asia | Personality Tests Asia | Psychometric Training Asia |
Psychometric Assessment Asia
Psychometric Tests and Psychometric Training from Business Psychologists
Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand
 
 
Search
Email Us
Call Us
Sitemap
Australian Psychological Society Psychologist
  Home     Aptitude Tests     Personality Tests     Psychometric Training     Online Psychometric Courses     360° Appraisal     Knowledgebase     Blog          Contact  
Psychometric Assessment Blog
 

Posts Tagged ‘using psychometric test results’

Online Psychometric Test Mini-Course: Lesson 6

Friday, September 24th, 2010

In this session we will explore the following:

1. Computer-based scoring of psychometric tests
2. Hand-scoring of psychometric tests
3. Norming of test results
4. The link between scoring of tests and reliability

Converting raw scores to standardised scores and using representative norms will be covered in a later session.

Once a psychometric test has been properly administered, it needs to be scored. Depending on the test chosen, you may have a few options.

a. You can opt for computer-based scoring.

This would work if you had administered the test using computer software or if you had asked your candidate to complete an online test. For online tests, this option is good because it is less likely to involve scoring errors! Your candidate completes the test online and then the system immediately and automatically scores the test. There is no additional input required and hence less chance for error. This pre-supposes the publisher has used the correct scoring algorithms of course. Whilst most reputable test publishers will, we do know of one who had an error in a test battery that was not spotted until one of their distributors pointed out that his partner had done poorly on a test for which she was a subject matter expert!!

If you administer the test to your candidate using desktop software, you should be able to automatically score it in the same way as above.

b. You can opt for hand-scoring or a bureau service or keyed input followed by computer-scoring. You are most likely to use this option if you administered the test to your candidate using hard-copy test booklets and answer sheets.

Firstly, you’ll need to double-check the answer sheets to ensure that there are no irregularities. Ensure that it’s obvious which answer the respondent selected. Be careful with any “blobs” that may have appeared from ink or pencil smudges etc. If a respondent has changed their mind after selecting a response and has crossed it out, ensure that you only use the most recent response in scoring.

For hand-scoring using a scoring key, you’ll next need to align the scoring key with the answer sheet. The exact requirements will vary based on the test you are using, so ensure that you read and fully understand the instructions provided by the test publisher.

Once you have scored the responses, double-check your scoring. You then need to record the score. The score you calculate at this point is called the RAW SCORE. On its own, a raw score means nothing. If I tell you that you scored 54 on a numerical reasoning test or 75 on the extraversion scale of a personality assessment, you’ll need to ask me more questions before you truly understand your score. The most important question to ask would be how your score compared to others. The comparison of your score with others is called norming.

It is called norming because we compare a candidate’s score to a group of others (called the norm group) who completed the test in the past. To undertake this comparison, you can do it by way of a simple calculation or through the use of norm tables either developed by yourself or, more usually, supplied by the test publisher.

Norm tables allow us to use a standard vocabulary for expressing a candidate’s score in relation to others who have taken the test and it is for this reason that we call your new score a standardised score. A standardised score is simply your candidate’s raw score, compared with the norm group and expressed in terms of how the candidate scored in relation to others. We’ll consider standardised scores in more detail in a later lesson. You’ll see by now that your objective is to calculate the candidate’s standard score as this is the way to achieve maximum meaning. If you opt for paper and pencil tests and hand-scoring, the process can be lengthy. So are there other options?

We have already seen above that we can simply have the candidate complete an online test. However, you may not wish to do this if there are many candidates. This is because you will need as many computers as candidates if you are going to supervise them. If you are using an unsupervised test, the candidate can complete on their own PC, but you may be concerned about possible cheating and so on. This is why you may end up using paper and pencil tests (in a supervised environment). However, there is an alternative to arduous hand-scoring if you have used paper and pencil tests.

You can use the bureau service of your psychometric test distributor. You just need to check that the answer sheet is properly completed, clear and free from any irregularities and then send the answer sheet to the distributor by fax or scanned email. The bureau service will then score the test for you and send you a report.

Furthermore, you may have another option yet. If you have access to a computer or online test system, you can probably also enter the candidate’s responses to each question into the system and have the system produce the report. This is essentially what the bureau service above does for you. Doing it yourself should work out cheaper. Do be careful when you transpose the responses though – accuracy is far more important than speed unless you want to invalidate the whole process!!

Self-scoring answer sheets: Some psychometric tests are supplied with self-scoring answer sheets. These are much easier to use than non-self-scoring answer sheets. In this case you usually need to open up the answer sheet by tearing off some perforated card. Inside the answer sheet, the candidate’s responses will have been duplicated via carbon or similar onto a scoring card. Usually, you add up the number of responses (often black circles) that appear inside a circle. Those outside of a circle represent incorrect answers so don’t get counted. Once you’ve added up correct responses, you have your raw score. Slightly different procedures obviously apply for personality assessments and fewer personality assessments provide self-scoring answer sheets due to their scoring complexity. When using self-scoring answer sheets you need to be especially careful to ensure that the candidate presses hard on the answer sheet when completing the test. If they are light-handed their responses may not come through onto the scoring card!

Finally, let’s consider the link between psychometric test scoring and reliability/validity. As you know, the test administrator can have a huge impact upon psychometric test reliability throughout the whole process. At the scoring stage you can affect reliability simply by scoring incorrectly. This might happen because you miss the fact that a candidate crossed out their answer and changed their mind. It may also happen because you try to score fast and just don’t add up correctly. Perhaps you use the scoring key incorrectly or perhaps the scoring is so arduous (often the case for personality assessments) that you simply get lost in the scoring or incorrectly use your calculator!

Ensure therefore that you fully understand how to score the test, use the scoring key as per the publisher’s instructions, score slowly and double check or have someone else double check your scoring. If possible, use computer based scoring or self-scoring answer sheets. Incorrect scoring reduces reliability and of course that means that a valid test can become invalid and a waste of time or money!

Interested in learning more about psychometric testing for HRM? Keep reading – your next free session is not far away! To ensure you don’t miss a single instalment, we suggest you follow-us on twitter as each new post will be announced there. You may also like to join our face-to-face psychometric training courses in Singapore or Hong Kong – these range from simple introductory courses through to Certification Courses such as the BPS Level A and BPS Level B Certificates of Competence in Occupational Testing. Not in Singapore or Hong Kong? No problem – we also offer both recorded and live online training in psychometrics! For full details please see here or email us.

DO NOT COPY OR SAVE THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR COMPUTER.
THIS ARTICLE IS CLEARED FOR PUBLISHING ON PSYCHOLOGY1 GROUP SITES ONLY. IT REMAINS COPYRIGHT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF PSYASIA INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD. YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PUBLISH IT ON ANY OTHER SITE. YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO COPY/PASTE THIS ARTICLE OR TO SAVE IT TO YOUR LOCAL DRIVE. YOU ARE ONLY PERMITTED TO READ IT ONLINE AT OUR WEBSITE. VIOLATION OF THESE TERMS WILL RESULT IN BANNING OF OFFENDING IPS AND LEGAL ACTION FOR THOSE WHO REPUBLISH THIS ARTICLE WHETHER IT BE WITH OR WITHOUT A REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR.

Indigenous psychometric tests – Do they predict performance?

Sunday, August 1st, 2010

It’s perhaps quite natural to believe that the Chinese personality is so different to others that it requires a special psychometric test to assess it. What better way to sell your new Chinese personality test than to state that it is “high time a test for the Chinese” were developed. However, this throws doubt upon the utility of rigorously developed international psychometric tests of personality.

Given the above, we embarked on a research program to assess whether Chinese people differ significantly comparied to others in terms of personality structure and whether personality tests that purport to assess Chinese Personality are able to predict any more work performance than internationally developed tests have already been proven to do!

You can read our research findings it: personality.cn, our Chinese Personality at Work Research Site.

No time to read the whole site? Here’s a quick summary:

Locally developed psychometric tests which purport to assess “indigenous” aspects of Chinese Personality were found to be less reliable than reputable internationally developed tests of personality. Furthermore, there is a big question as to whether so-called “indigenous” traits are Chinese-specific. Issues such as traditionalism or face also exist in other cultures! Moreover, the research has demonstrated that whatever we choose to believe about Chinese Personality, locally developed (Hong Kong) tests of “indigenous” personality add nothing to the prediction of performance at work that is not already accounted for by reputable internationally developed personality tests.

 We present this research in a free HRM webinar which you can watch here. We held a vote at the beginning and end of our webinar whereby we asked attendees if they believed that Chinese Personality is so different that Chinese people need their own personality test. At the beginning of the webinar, the majority of the attendees said yes! By the end of the webinar only one attendee still believed this to be the case!  We recommend choosing well designed psychometric tests with high reliability and validity. Personality is a universal construct, thus locally developed tests may have little benefit to the hiring manager!

HRM Webinar: How Chinese are the Chinese? A look at Personality Tests for the China

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010
  Join us for a Webinar on June 22
 
 
   
 
 
This is a FREE webinar in PsyAsia’s HRM themed webinar series. In this session we are pleased to present research on and answer questions about whether or not Chinese people are significantly different to other major groups and whether any potential differences are likely to impact upon the ability of personality tests to predict performance at work.Some HR people in Asia believe that culture plays such a significant role in personality that indigenous personality attributes need to be assessed at recruitment/selection. To this end, personality tests have been developed “in Chinese for the Chinese by the Chinese”.  A significant question to ask is: Do these tests add any prediction over and above that afforded by mainstream personality tests developed by world renowned experts in the field?The above questions will be answered through discussion of the trait model of personality and its biological basis. Peer-reviewed and published research conducted by PsyAsia International’s award-winning Psychologist, Dr. Graham Tyler;  award-winning Dr. Peter Newcombe of the University of Queensland; and world-renowned Professor Paul Barrett, formerly of the University of Auckland will be presented in an easy to understand format.

As always, the webinar is open to all HR and related professionals in our region. It is not open to competitors. You must provide your corporate email address when registering – we do not approve free email accounts such as yahoo/google/hotmail/rediffmail etc.

All attendees who remain for the entire session will receive a free pdf Certificate of Professional Development. Hard-copy certificates can also be requested for a fee.

 
Title:   Chinese Personality at Work – How Chinese are the Chinese?
 
Date:   Tuesday, June 22, 2010
 
Time:   5:00 PM – 6:00 PM SGT
 
After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.
 
System RequirementsPC-based attendeesRequired: Windows® 7, Vista, XP, 2003 Server or 2000
 
Macintosh®-based attendeesRequired: Mac OS® X 10.4.11 (Tiger®) or newer 
 

Space is limited.
Reserve your Webinar seat now at:
https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/671216737

Replacing psychometric tests with biological tests?

Friday, April 16th, 2010

Last week the Singapore-based Straits Times published an article which reported a study carried out at NUS linking testosterone to advantages in leadership. PsyAsia’s Dr. Graham Tyler was asked to comment on the reasearch and he was asked if biological testing might replace psychometric testing in the future! A copy of the article can be downloaded here:

Testosterone and Leadership

There are a number of limitations in the above thinking. Not least the fact that the study was carried out on students – hardly real-world organisational leaders! Also, given that this was a correlational analysis it cannot be inferred that testosterone increases leadership skills. It might actually be the opposite. Finding oneself in leadership scenarios may cause the body to produce more testosterone!

Biological testing is certainly not about to replace psychometric tests in Singapore or anywhere else. Not only is the area contentious it would also bring legal issues into play. We know already that biology plays a role in many aspects of who we are from personality traits to ability and more. However, we also know that the environment, access to resources and simply luck (ie where we find ourselves, who our teachers/mentors are) also play a huge part. Psychometric tests should never be used on their own to inform decision-making processes and neither should any other form of assessment – biological testing, interviews and so forth. However, the use of highly valid tools used in conjunction with each other is a good thing.

Note: In the article, there is a mention that aptitude tests can predict between 9-36% of performance. This is incorrect. The journalist asked about personality tests and was told that traditional personality tests can predict about 9-36% of performance. Aptitude tests are able to predict more than this and more modern personality assessments such as Identity or the Saville Consulting Wave do an even better job than traditonal personality tests!

Psychometric Webinar – Amazing Apollo Profile Personality Assessment

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

The Amazing Apollo Profile

This free webinar will be facilitated by Mr. Jim Bowden, the developer of the Apollo Profile. The session will be interactive (provided attendees kit themselves out with headphones and a mic!) and Jim will present numerous interesting case studies.

The webinar will cover the following:

• Introduction: The Amazing Apollo Profile- can transform Recruitment, Staff Development, and Organisation Performance –Client example
• Apollo Questionnaire – valid/reliable/comprehensive
• Why is Apollo amazing? Apollo Advantages
• Using and interpreting of Apollo reports with anecdotes
• Recruitment – Accurate, easy, low cost – Case Study using Apollo Best Match in China for filtering 12,000 applicants for 40 Graduate level jobs
• Training and Development – Unique Apollo report PLUS downloadable solutions. Convenient, low cost, motivating
• Organisation Development. Benchmarking: Can analyse and identify current corporate strengths and weaknesses – then create high performing models/culture, identify engagement issues – case studies
• Customising: Develop models that work specifically for your organisation. If your organisation is serious about leadership through people.
• Integrate everything together with flexible multi-purpose Internet Online solutions. Use your own competencies frameworks and vocabulary – examples
• Special Offer – have to listen to Webinar to find out!

Date: Monday, May 17, 2010

Time: 12:30 PM – 1:30 PM SGT

After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.

System Requirements

PC-based attendees
Required: Windows® 7, Vista, XP, 2003 Server or 2000

Macintosh®-based attendees
Required: Mac OS® X 10.4.11 (Tiger®) or newer

Space is limited.
Reserve your Webinar seat now at:
https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/522465752

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

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.

 
 
  • Recent Posts

  • Tags

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • 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 1 and 2 RQTU Training (British Psychological Society Psychometric 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 Psychometric Training & Certification Courses
    Dates for all Psychometric Test Training Courses
    Register for Psychometric Training 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
    Psychometrics Blog
    Online Psychometric Courses
    Search
    Email Us
    Call Us
    Sitemap
     
      Copyright © 2001-2013 PsyAsia International Pte. Ltd. A Psychology1 Group Site. All rights reserved.
      Psychometric Tests Asia, Aptitude Tests & Personality Tests in Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand.
       PsyAsia's Foundation: Bui Doi Philippines  
      Do Not Copy