Psychometric testing is one of those things almost everyone has experienced at some point in their career. Some people swear by it, most tolerate it, and plenty quietly hate it. So the real question isn’t “does psychometric testing work?” It’s when should you use it, how should you use it, and how do you make sure it doesn’t accidentally push away the right people?
At TA we do use psychometric testing. I’m not against it at all. In fact, I think it has a genuine place in a hiring process. But like most tools in recruitment, it’s powerful when used properly and risky when relied on too heavily. Used well, it can add valuable insight. Used poorly, it can steer you away from someone who might have been an excellent hire.
The candidate experience matters more than you think
One thing that often gets forgotten is what the process feels like from the candidate’s side.
Early in a hiring process, candidates simply aren’t emotionally invested in your business yet. They don’t know your team, they haven’t built rapport, and they’re still deciding whether they even want the job. So when the very first interaction is a 30 to 60 minute psychometric test, it can feel like homework rather than an opportunity.
In competitive markets like tech and engineering, that friction matters. Strong candidates usually have options. If one process feels human and conversational and another feels long and clinical, guess which one they’re more likely to continue with?
Often they don’t fail the test. They just quietly drop out.
I’ve seen great people think, “If I don’t have to do this elsewhere, why would I bother here?” and move on. That’s a loss you don’t even see happening.
The risk of using testing too early
Timing is where a lot of businesses go wrong.
Running psychometric testing right at the start means you’re making decisions with an incomplete data set. You’re judging behavioural traits before you’ve even established whether someone can actually do the job. That’s backwards.
Personality also isn’t fixed in a vacuum. People adapt to environments, leaders and cultures. A test is just a snapshot in time, not the full story. When you rely on it too early, you can end up filtering out someone who would have thrived once they understood the role and the team.
Psychometric testing should support your understanding, not replace it.
Where psychometric testing actually adds value
All that said, there is absolutely value in psychometric testing when it’s used properly.
It can help you understand communication style, how someone handles pressure, whether they naturally take charge or prefer structure, and where potential risk areas might sit. That insight can be incredibly helpful, especially when you already know what behavioural profile tends to succeed in a particular role.
Take DISC as an example. In recruitment or sales roles, higher dominance and influence traits often correlate with success because you want energy, confidence and resilience. In finance, compliance or analytical roles, that same profile might be a poor fit, and someone more methodical and detail-oriented could perform far better.
Knowing this helps you hire with intention rather than instinct.
The key is simply not treating the test like gospel.
A better way to structure it
From what we’ve seen, psychometric testing works best after you’ve already validated capability.
Start with proper interviews. Assess skills, experience, problem solving, motivation and cultural alignment first. Work out whether this person can actually do the job and wants to do it. Once you’ve done that, then bring in testing, usually between first and second interview or before a final stage.
At that point, you’re not asking “should we screen this person out?” You’re asking “what else should we explore?”
That small shift changes everything.
Instead of making decisions from the test, you use it to ask better questions.
If the results suggest someone might struggle with direction, explore it. Ask about times they disagreed with a manager and how they handled it. If organisation looks like a risk, ask how they prioritise when things get busy. If stress tolerance is flagged, ask for real examples of high-pressure situations.
Now the test becomes a conversation starter, not a filter.
Add objectivity and validate the picture
Another thing that really helps is bringing in a second interviewer who isn’t emotionally attached to the candidate. When you’ve built rapport with someone, it’s easy to subconsciously overlook red flags or justify gaps because you like them. A fresh set of eyes often gets more objective answers and a clearer view.
If you’re still unsure, references are the perfect final step. Psychometric insights can actually make reference checks stronger because you know exactly what to probe. Ask about stress, organisation, prioritisation or how they handled feedback. Look for consistent patterns across interviews, testing and references rather than relying on one data point.
By this stage, you’ve built a complete picture, which is how hiring decisions should be made.
So, should you use psychometric testing?
If you think it could be valuable, yes.
We use them ourselves and will continue to. But they are a tool to inform decisions, not make them. They should sit alongside interviews, second opinions and references, not replace human judgement.
The best hiring outcomes come from combining multiple data points and applying common sense, not from a single report or colour on a chart.
At the end of the day, hiring is still about people. Psychometric testing can help you understand those people better, but only if you use it with context and care. Done right, it adds clarity. Done wrong, it simply adds friction and pushes good candidates away.
And in today’s market, that’s a risk most businesses can’t afford.