RIS-3751-TOM Iss 4 - Psychometric Testing Attempts Update - 07/12/2024

[nolypops83]

It's you who said that "The brain keeps developing until your (you're) 25" so by your logic, waiting for everyone to reach that stage would surely be fairer, as encouraging applicants who are younger will potentially increase their risk of failure due to their cognitive abilities not being fully developed so increasing the minimum age then gives everyone an equal chance of passing.

Or they could just give an extra life. Which is what they've done. It's not my logic, it's the RSSB. I happen to agree with them, although it won't impact me. I think it would be unfair to make someone wait until they are 25 just because their peers might not be ready.

It also covers other situations where someone's performance may be impaired on the day of the tests, such as death of a family member, divorce, illness etc.

 

[Pintman]

It also covers other situations where someone's performance may be impaired on the day of the tests, such as death of a family member, divorce, illness etc.

If you're going through that and it's going to impact your performance on the tests but you still sit them, that is on you. You will be given an opportunity to declare any issues before sitting, if you decare then the assessor will speak to you about them. If you're ill, and you KNOW you have a finite number of attempts, why are you wasting one on a day that you're ill?!

 

[Horizon22]

There may be an argument for that to be the case although I would assume that the interviewer takes the candidate's age and experience into account during questioning and uses appropriate techniques to elicit relevant answers as much as possible.

I doubt that. Almost interview questions are standardised for fairness.

 

[nolypops83]

Because the tests are meant to test innate aptitude, which is the whole reason for having a cut off in the first place.

Some people will absolutely slip through the net (as with any recruitment process), but why does that matter when there are plenty of applicants capable of doing the job?

It matters because unlike many other recruitment processes you only get so many attempts. They've decided that that negatively impacts younger people over more mature people (I'm not saying old) and they want to make it a little more balanced. It tests innate aptitude but also there are circumstances where that aptitude could be impaired temporarily and the changes see to compensate for that.

I agree. It should be made tougher. As someone involved in training I want to know the quality of the person driving my train on my license is as high as possible. I don’t see how this change better ensures that.

I get that, I'm sure it's a tough gig, but I think you might have to be a little more open minded. You seem to be sure it won't, RSSB think otherwise.

I’m confused: here you seem to claim it isn’t a generalisation, but then acknowledge it isn’t the same for everyone, hence why it is a generalisation, by definition!

It isn't the same for everyone but by the age of 25 it's accepted that your brain will be fully developed. They've recognised that and adjusted the rules to allow young people to develop and grow.

Yes, you aren’t supposed to have totally clear idea of the tests until you sit them - again, that’s done by design, and is the why the practice material is as it is.

I don’t really see why it matters whether someone fails a few points or a large margin; a fail is a fail, and there has to be a cut off somewhere. That will remain the case even under the new system. It feels more like your objection is to any possibility of failing.

Well, it does if you get more than one go at it. If I absolutely tanked the first time then I'd probably do so on the second and third goes, no assuming no mitigating circumstances, matter how much I practice. But if I was just a tiny bit off then I'd be more likely to get it right the next time. Little more speed, little more accuracy, there is room for improvement but not THAT MUCH improvement.

Me for instance, I did really well on all my tests apart from the one I failed. The assessor said I wasn't far off. So I'm applying again. If the feedback had been less favourable then I probably wouldn't bother.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Dec 2024 ==

If you're going through that and it's going to impact your performance on the tests but you still sit them, that is on you. You will be given an opportunity to declare any issues before sitting, if you decare then the assessor will speak to you about them. If you're ill, and you KNOW you have a finite number of attempts, why are you wasting one on a day that you're ill?!

Not everyone feels comfortable or is able to disclose their medical situation. They might not even know about it until after.

 

[43066]

Or they could just give an extra life.

By that same logic, why stop at one extra life? Why not four goes, or six, or thirty?

I get that, I'm sure it's a tough gig, but I think you might have to be a little more open minded. You seem to be sure it won't, RSSB think otherwise.

Colour me cynical , but there were a few noises made during the last industrial dispute about changing the profile of the driver grade, in particular bringing in younger people who are perhaps expected to be less likely to join a union, more complaint etc. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if these changes are aimed at that, rather than about genuinely ensuring the best candidates make it into the grade.

It might make things easier for some candidates, but I remain unconvinced that this will make much difference in terms of the stated aim of bringing younger people in, nor that it will improve quality, which is all I’m really interested in. If the powers that be genuinely want to increase diversity (which I’m all for) they could look at modifying the shift patterns to make the job more family friendly etc., but of course that costs money, so instead they just tinker around the edges.

 

[12LDA28C]

Not everyone feels comfortable or is able to disclose their medical situation. They might not even know about it until after.

That’s true however the importance of disclosing any kind of medical condition or personal situation that has the potential to affect your performance at work is stressed heavily to both trainee and qualified drivers so if you’re unwilling or unable to do that then that’s likely to lead to problems in the long run.

 

[357]

Not everyone feels comfortable or is able to disclose their medical situation. They might not even know about it until after.

If you're uncomfortable disclosing medical conditions then you have no place in the cab of a train, or in any safety critical position.

And the second sentence, you want them to cater to a medical condition that they are unaware of, for an applicant doesn't even know they have?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Dec 2024 ==

I genuinely hate this culture some display on here

Don't worry, many people appear to dislike staff on here

However, the "culture" you genuinely hate is generally displayed from drivers who have been through the process, have first hand experience, know how challenging the training and qualification process is, and in many cases now train new drivers themselves.

Instead of seeing the negativity, try to learn from their own experiences and take on board what they are saying.

 

[Kay_M]

If you're uncomfortable disclosing medical conditions then you have no place in the cab of a train, or in any safety critical position.

And the second sentence, you want them to cater to a medical condition that they are unaware of, for an applicant doesn't even know they have?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Dec 2024 ==


Don't worry, many people appear to dislike staff on here

However, the "culture" you genuinely hate is generally displayed from drivers who have been through the process, have first hand experience, know how challenging the training and qualification process is, and in many cases now train new drivers themselves.

Instead of seeing the negativity, try to learn from their own experiences and take on board what they are saying.

I work in the industry so I know how the thing goes and have close friends who are drivers. What I didn't like was how some came across as condescending. I did clear a few things up last week and that was resolved

 

[357]

I work in the industry so I know how the thing goes and have close friends who are drivers. What I didn't like was how some came across as condescending. I did clear a few things up last week and that was resolved

Nobody was being condescending.

I've worked both sides of the cab door, and know first hand the resentment towards drivers from many people in many other grades. Drivers are by a long way the most disliked staff in the industry, perhaps with the exception of TIL.

For the record I hope you do manage to get a place on a driver's course one day, and I promise you it will take about a week for you to understand how much work needs to be put in. The tests are by no means the hardest part of becoming a driver.

 

[Kay_M]

Nobody was being condescending.

I've worked both sides of the cab door, and know first hand the resentment towards drivers from many people in many other grades. Drivers are by a long way the most disliked staff in the industry, perhaps with the exception of TIL.

For the record I hope you do manage to get a place on a driver's course one day, and I promise you it will take about a week for you to understand how much work needs to be put in. The tests are by no means the hardest part of becoming a driver.

You might not have thought that but I felt as though it was but I digress much appreciated for your second paragraph as again the people I know in the grade have told me the same thing you've said as it's not a walk in the park

 

[Pintman]

That’s true however the importance of disclosing any kind of medical condition or personal situation that has the potential to affect your performance at work is stressed heavily to both trainee and qualified drivers so if you’re unwilling or unable to do that then that’s likely to lead to problems in the long run.

If you're uncomfortable disclosing medical conditions then you have no place in the cab of a train, or in any safety critical position.

Wholeheartedly agree with both of these points. And if a candidate isn't aware of something that may impact their performance, it's wholly unrealistic to expect an assessment centre to know about and accommodate for it on the assessment day. And the same for managers going forward!

 

[nolypops83]

Wholeheartedly agree with both of these points. And if a candidate isn't aware of something that may impact their performance, it's wholly unrealistic to expect an assessment centre to know about and accommodate for it on the assessment day. And the same for managers going forward!

Example would be you pass the paper tests, then get invited to the computer tests and MMI. When taking the paper tests you feel fine, however on the day of the computer tests/MMI you feel tired and just assume it's lack of sleep. During the MMI you forget what you are trying to say and don't give a good account of yourself. You fail and it's your second go. A few weeks later you visit the GP and it turns out your iron levels are low and you need to take tablets. It's not a long term condition so clears up after a while and you feel better. Under normal circumstances you'd be finished, but with the new rules you are able to get another go.

 

[Pintman]

One of the things that you confirm on the day of the assessment is that you are well rested enough to sit the assessments. If you do not feel well rested, you should not be sitting the assessments. If a candidate fills out a form declaring that they feel well rested enough to sit the assessments even though they feel they have had a lack of sleep, that is on them.

 

[357]

Example would be you pass the paper tests, then get invited to the computer tests and MMI. When taking the paper tests you feel fine, however on the day of the computer tests/MMI you feel tired and just assume it's lack of sleep. During the MMI you forget what you are trying to say and don't give a good account of yourself. You fail and it's your second go. A few weeks later you visit the GP and it turns out your iron levels are low and you need to take tablets. It's not a long term condition so clears up after a while and you feel better. Under normal circumstances you'd be finished, but with the new rules you are able to get another go.

If you don't feel well but are happy to state you're fine, you shouldn't be driving a train.

 

[Neatro]

Example would be you pass the paper tests, then get invited to the computer tests and MMI. When taking the paper tests you feel fine, however on the day of the computer tests/MMI you feel tired and just assume it's lack of sleep. During the MMI you forget what you are trying to say and don't give a good account of yourself. You fail and it's your second go. A few weeks later you visit the GP and it turns out your iron levels are low and you need to take tablets. It's not a long term condition so clears up after a while and you feel better. Under normal circumstances you'd be finished, but with the new rules you are able to get another go.

Not being funny but this is just a completely made up scenario that has no relation.

You're asked if you're fine, if you say yes that's you confirming whether you fall I'll or not.

And if it's your second time a year after your first, can you for certain say you won't be unwell 4 years later?

Or if you're unwell on your third go, would you like a fourth go?

 

[nolypops83]

Not being funny but this is just a completely made up scenario that has no relation.

You're asked if you're fine, if you say yes that's you confirming whether you fall I'll or not.

And if it's your second time a year after your first, can you for certain say you won't be unwell 4 years later?

Or if you're unwell on your third go, would you like a fourth go?

Of course it’s made up. The reality is that the RSSB have changed the rules and have given a rationale as to why they’ve done it. If you want specific examples you won’t find them here, I’m just theorising. You’d have to ask them.

 

[AverageJoe]

I understand people desperately want the job, but as a driver I’ve read through these comments and I think the other drivers are speaking sense.

Seems to be that people outside of the job seem to think it’s easier than it is. I was probably one of them, but I did come from tram driver so had some idea of the demands of the job.

I think when people see these comments from drivers they think we don’t want them to have the job and they we are ‘special’.

That’s not the case though. I just want my colleagues to have the correct skills and attitude so that I feel safe working with them and know they aren’t going to be a constant problem employee.

When people come on these forums and start arguing with current staff as if they know better it just makes me think ‘I hope I don’t end up working with them in the future because they sound like they have a right stinking attitude already’.

As regards the psychometrics now having 3 attempts. I don’t really have anything against it but I don’t understand the point of it since they have plenty of applicants that do pass within 2 attempts.

But I see that it gives some a little more hope.

One thing I would say with this job is you don’t want to be one that slips through the cracks whether it be by luck or overly preparing for the tests because mistakes can quickly follow with stress and job security becoming a worry. I know of a driver in that position now.

 

[Horizon22]

Can we please keep this thread on-topic with regards to the RSSB's update to testing attempts. If discussion has come to an end on this topic, it will eventually be closed.

Any other discussing regarding assessments or assessment practices is best placed in this thread: Assessments and Medicals Discussion.

 

[DMckduck]

Interesting points raised throughout here, but yet to see a real answer to why in example Candidate A takes and fails a part of the process on 06/12/24 and only gets 1 more go ever.

Whereas Candidate B does exactly the same on 07/12/24 or thereafter and gets 2.

 

[Spincity]

Interesting points raised throughout here, but yet to see a real answer to why in example Candidate A takes and fails a part of the process on 06/12/24 and only gets 1 more go ever.

Whereas Candidate B does exactly the same on 07/12/24 or thereafter and gets 2.

Because the process changed…that’s it.

At some stage in life things change…I passed my driving test without doing the theory…that’s what happens.

I can tow a trailer without an additional assessment.

My house had solid walls and no cavity, the rules changed, now have cavity.

Life moves on. Some win some loose

 

[DMckduck]

Because the process changed…that’s it.

At some stage in life things change…I passed my driving test without doing the theory…that’s what happens.

I can tow a trailer without an additional assessment.

My house had solid walls and no cavity, the rules changed, now have cavity.

Life moves on. Some win some loose

But say you failed your driving test, would you expect to complete the theory or still be on the old process?

 

[Spincity]

But say you failed your driving test, would you expect to complete the theory or still be on the old process?

Who knows, do you?… but if the policy changed that’s it, either redo your driving test as required or don’t drive. Very simple.

Somewhat irrelevant however…there’s a cut off date for the retest policy change, it’s been implemented.

 

[Pintman]

Interesting points raised throughout here, but yet to see a real answer to why in example Candidate A takes and fails a part of the process on 06/12/24 and only gets 1 more go ever.

Whereas Candidate B does exactly the same on 07/12/24 or thereafter and gets 2.

Ultimately the answer is because RSSB says so. They regulate the process, it's their call. If anyone did ask them their justification I would be interested to hear it.

 

[Horizon22]

Ultimately the answer is because RSSB says so. They regulate the process, it's their call. If anyone did ask them their justification I would be interested to hear it.

At some point you have to say the process changes. There's cut-offs in all areas of life and sometimes it is just arbitrary based on age or things like that. Consider for example how many drivers there are at TOCs who live more than 60 minutes away from their depot because they were hired before such rules for recruitment and fatigue management existed. Or people on different T&Cs based on start date.

 

[Spincity]

At some point you have to say the process changes. There's cut-offs in all areas of life and sometimes it is just arbitrary based on age or things like that. Consider for example how many drivers there are at TOCs who live more than 60 minutes away from their depot because they were hired before such rules for recruitment and fatigue management existed. Or people on different T&Cs based on start date.

Agree. If something is amended/new regulation etc comes in, somewhere there has to be a cut. If a TOC decided to increase its cutoff scores (went enhanced) would those that passed the process who are drivers/talent pool but did not pass to these enhanced standards now be thrown out off the pool/role. Or would the TOC say after a certain date new candidates must get the higher scores. Or reverse, fail candidates to enhance scores, but then revert to national standards and then trawl through 100s of previous results and tell candidates you’ve now passed. There are times when things change some win/some loose. It’s life. Move forward