E-Litmus pH Test Exam

Hiring Potential Test (pH Test)

In March 2008, a Fortune 500 IT services company used eLitmus pH test as a benchmark to recruit entry-level professionals. At the end of the three-month training program, there was zero involuntary attrition among people hired through pH. In contrast, the average percentage of new hires let go at the end of training period was over 5.2% when recruited through alternate channels. This resulted in a saving to the company of Rs 1.8 million for every hundred hires.

Companies ranging from start-ups to global giants across a gamut of industries like IT security, IT products, R&D, software services, physical infrastructure and KPO have benefitted immensely from using pH Test as a benchmark.

Modern day business schools are also finding pH Test extremely relevant as an admissions test. The evolution of focused MBA institutes that offer super-specialization which require potential students to have corresponding strengths. pH Test can very effectively identify these traits. Additionally, students who undergo excessive coaching at one of the training institutes (which teach students strategies to “crack the test”, not concepts) get no undue advantage on the pH test. Lastly, the pH Test uses highly researched methodologies to create a gradient in the top quartile of talent pool.

pH Test demystified

pH Test uses on-the-job performance feedback provided by select customers, and theoretical psychometric methodologies and standards to continuously improve the test validity. Our cross-functional research team comprises domain experts, industry practitioners and statisticians. We have been able to demonstrate a thought leadership of 10 to 34 months over other leading standardized tests, with path-breaking innovations like handicap-based negative marking. 

Information for test takers

The pH Test is conducted every few weeks across the country. The schedule of upcoming tests is regularly published on www.elitmus.com. The test has been designed to measure the natural ability of test takers rather than your ability to learn by rote. To this end, all necessary formulae are provided in the question paper. Those who focus on building fundamentals and broad skills, rather than on learning “tricks” to solve specific topics perform better on this test.

Pitfalls in Evaluations

For a test that has a large enough number of test takers, the marks distribution will be a normal curve as shown below.

Tests fail when:

1. The methodology used to identify the right candidates is misplaced
   
   A real story: When Sunitha’s parents were visiting her in Bangalore, she wanted a driver who could show them around the ciry. She hired one after asking him these questions: “Do you know the route to MG Road , Lalbagh and Forum?” and “Do you have a valid driver's license?” Both of which criteria, of course, the driver satisfied. The second day on the job, he met with a road accident injuring both parents. A classic example of evaluation gone wrong; it tested the stated objective but was not completely relevant. Most tests created “in-house” are ad-hoc. The creator of the test tries is usually always looking to come up with 'clever' or 'difficult' questions rather than trying to identify the skills that need to be tested by a question.
   
   
   

1. 'Unsuitable' and 'Border-line' candidates are able to make it to the 'Right' candidates region
   
   A typical campus written test of 1 hour has 40 multiple-choice questions with a cut-off around 18 marks. Now, consider a candidate who knows the answers to 11 questions and gets another 7 right through sheer guess work. At the interview stage, questions from any given panel tend to repeat across interviews. If this candidate is interviewed towards the end of the line-up, s/he could clear this process because of access to historical information.
   
   
   

1. Conventional linear negative marking approach is used
   
   To prevent guess work, typical tests (including CAT) penalise a test taker with negative marks for wrong attempts. Negative marks are awarded for each wrong attempt and are a fraction of the marks awarded for the right answers. This system is inherently flawed. To begin with, no attempt is made to differentiate between a student who actually solves the question and gets a wrong answer and a guess maker. Seconly, the resources (ex:time) used by a test-taker are not taken into consideration. For example, a test-taker who attempts 20 questions and gets 4 wrong and a test-taker who attempts 40 questions to get 4 wrong are penalised equally, whereas the first test taker had the luxury of more time per question compared to the second one. pH Test uses a handicap based negative marking approach to address such issues. Read more about pH test's pioneering methodologies.
   
   
   

1. High preparedness of the candidates
   
   Typically, the test format or question types are extremely predictable for a company. A candidate could prepare for such an exam over a long period of time utilizing historic data and clear the evaluation. In an endorsement of the phenomenon, the IITs recently identified prolonged preparation by candidates as a reason for the falling quality of intake.