Construct Validity
Construct validity relates to whether a particular psychometric assessment...
PAGE CONTENTS
The communication crisis
Why communication skills are critical (and expensive to get wrong)
Poor communication is a productivity killer. Research consistently shows that communication failures are among the leading causes of project delays and team dysfunction in UK workplaces.
When you hire someone with weak communication skills, the problems compound quickly. Unclear instructions lead to rework. Misunderstood expectations create conflict. Poor stakeholder management damages client relationships.
The ripple effect: One poor communicator can slow down entire projects, frustrate high-performing team members, and create bottlenecks that affect your organisation's ability to deliver results.
So how do you identify strong communicators before they join your team? Most hiring managers rely on interview questions, asking candidates to describe times they communicated complex information or handled difficult conversations.
Here's the fundamental problem: An interview is itself a communication exercise. The candidates who perform best in communication-focused interviews are often those who are most skilled at interviews, not necessarily those who communicate most effectively in day-to-day work situations.
The interview paradox
Why interview questions give you false confidence about communication skills
Think about what communication really involves: active listening, clear written expression, adapting your style to different audiences, managing difficult conversations, and building rapport with diverse stakeholders.
Interviews only test one narrow slice of this: How well someone can talk about communication in a prepared, one-on-one conversation with a hiring manager.
Three major flaws with interview-based communication assessment:
1. The performance paradox: Interviews reward confident self-presentation over genuine communication effectiveness. Someone might be charming in interviews but struggle with written communication or conflict resolution.
2. The preparation advantage: Candidates can rehearse communication examples, but real workplace communication happens spontaneously under pressure.
3. The single-mode limitation: Interviews only test verbal communication in a formal setting, missing crucial skills like written clarity, cross-functional collaboration, and difficult conversation management.
Research backs this up. Meta-analyses show that structured interviews have limited predictive validity for communication-heavy roles compared to well-designed behavioural assessments.
Even more concerning is the bias potential. Interview-based communication assessment can systematically favour extroverted, native speakers, or those from similar cultural backgrounds to the interviewer, while missing excellent communicators who don't fit the traditional "confident presenter" mould.
This doesn't mean interviews have no value for assessing communication - but treating them as your primary measurement tool is like judging someone's writing ability based solely on how well they can discuss grammar rules.
For teams still using interviews
5 communication interview questions (use with strong caveats)
If you're not ready to implement communication assessments yet, here are five interview questions that can provide some insight - though remember, they're still vulnerable to the limitations we discussed above.
Video summary: Ben Schwencke, our lead consultant, explains why communication is worth measuring and shares insights on these interview questions.
Critical reminder: These questions only tell you how well someone can talk about communication, not how they'll actually communicate under pressure in your workplace. Use these alongside, not instead of, objective assessment tools.
"Tell me about a time when you had to communicate complex information to a team or group of people who were unfamiliar with the subject matter."
What you're looking for: Evidence they can break down complex concepts into digestible pieces and tailor their communication to their audience's knowledge level.
Red flags: Answers that focus more on the complexity of the information than on their approach to making it understandable, or examples where the communication wasn't actually successful.
- 1. What was the complex information, and who was the target audience?
- 2. How did you break down the information into understandable parts, and what communication strategies did you use?
- 3. What was the outcome, and how did you know your communication was successful?
"Describe a time when you had to communicate effectively with someone who had a different communication style than your own."
What you're looking for: Flexibility in communication approach and awareness of how different people prefer to receive information.
- 1. What was the context, and how did you identify the difference in communication styles?
- 2. How did you adjust your approach, and what challenges did you face?
- 3. What was the outcome, and what did you learn about adapting your communication?
"Can you describe a time when you had to communicate difficult or sensitive information to a colleague or team member?"
What you're looking for: Sensitivity, preparation for difficult conversations, and the ability to communicate challenging messages while maintaining relationships.
- 1. What was the difficult information, and who was the recipient?
- 2. How did you prepare for the conversation and deliver the message?
- 3. How did you ensure the recipient felt supported and understood?
"Tell me about a time when you had to resolve a conflict with a colleague or team member through communication."
What you're looking for: Active listening skills, emotional intelligence, and the ability to find common ground through dialogue.
- 1. What was the nature of the conflict, and who was involved?
- 2. How did you approach the communication to resolve the conflict?
- 3. How did you ensure both parties were satisfied with the resolution?
"Describe a time when you had to provide constructive feedback to a colleague or team member."
What you're looking for: Thoughtful approach to giving feedback, ability to be both honest and supportive, and focus on improvement rather than criticism.
Remember: Even excellent answers to these questions only indicate interview performance, not workplace communication effectiveness. The most articulate interview responses can come from people who struggle with day-to-day communication tasks.
- 1. What was the nature of the feedback, and who was the recipient?
- 2. How did you prepare for the conversation and deliver the feedback constructively?
- 3. How did you ensure the recipient felt motivated to make improvements?
What actually works
The reliable method for identifying genuine workplace communicators
Stop hoping candidates will be honest about their communication abilities in interviews. There's a far more reliable approach that measures actual communication competencies, not storytelling skills.
Communication assessments evaluate the psychological traits and cognitive patterns that drive effective workplace communication. Instead of asking candidates to describe past communication, they measure how candidates actually process information, handle ambiguity, and structure responses under pressure.
What assessments actually measure: Written clarity under time pressure, ability to synthesise complex information, empathy and perspective-taking, conflict communication styles, and stress responses that affect communication quality.
These aren't personality quizzes or theoretical exercises. They're validated tools that predict real workplace communication performance with remarkable accuracy.
The assessment advantage:
- Tests real skills: Measures actual written clarity, verbal reasoning, and emotional intelligence rather than interview performance
- Impossible to fake: Sophisticated validation catches attempts to manipulate results
- Eliminates bias: Results are based on cognitive ability and behavioural patterns, not interview chemistry or cultural similarity
- Scalable screening: Evaluate 100 candidates in the time it takes to interview 10
How leading organisations measure communication effectively:
- Deploy communication assessments first: Screen all candidates for genuine communication competencies before investing interview time. You'll immediately identify those with the cognitive and emotional foundation for effective workplace communication.
- Use interviews strategically: Interview only candidates who've demonstrated real communication skills through assessment. Use this time to explore role-specific challenges and cultural fit, not basic communication ability.
- Validate results through trial tasks: For final candidates, use brief written exercises or presentation challenges that mirror actual job demands to confirm assessment predictions.
The transformation: Instead of gambling on interview charm, you'll consistently hire people who communicate clearly under pressure, write effectively, and navigate workplace conflicts constructively. Your team productivity and client satisfaction will reflect the difference.
Our communication assessments are built by occupational psychologists specifically to predict workplace communication success. They measure verbal reasoning, written clarity, emotional intelligence, and conflict management - the exact skills that drive real communication effectiveness.
Ready to stop guessing about communication skills? Explore our communication assessments and see how objective measurement transforms your hiring accuracy.
If you'd prefer to speak with an expert about your specific communication hiring challenges, book a call with our team. We'll help you identify the right assessment approach for your organisation.
