Posted By Robert K Lewis Better to not go here - After all one needs to draw up the psychometric profile of a risk taker - It will look something like the sum of all Human Beings! I have had experience of them and they can be an indicator but I for one would not rely on them totally. I heard somewhere that a govt dept is using them as a selection for redundancy process, this is a total abuse in my humble opinion. Bob

Posted By Robert M Edwards Pychometric testing has laid down standards and these do not include risk propensity. If you pay for them and loads of businesses do, then you can interpret the results in accordance with the job role. Most simply measure IQ results using a variety of methods. Risk propensity would be almost impossible to measure as any fair measurement would need to include so many variables. What areas of risk did you have in mind?

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear All, Is this a new variant of the "Accident Proneness Theory" of accident causation, i.e. are there individuals who have a propensity to have accidents? If so we can get rid of them and have a safety culture! Psychometric testing describes a range of exercises used by employers as a 'tool' to gauge an individual's aptitude or personality. When used correctly, the tests give additional insight into candidates and verify points coming out of interview. Because tests only provide part of the answer, trained and experienced interpreters should use them as part of a testing and interview process. Going back to the earlier question about accident proneness, testing for attributes like 'risk taking' is nonsensical unless you know whether the attribute is good or bad in the particular circumstances. Furthermore testing for this one attribute is likely to be non-productive as risk taking is almost certainly situation dependant to some degree. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Geoff Burt Multitasking? I haven't got time for that! Geoff