At Rachel Frost Ltd, we often hear from organisations and individuals looking for something different. They want psychometric testing that feels grounded and insightful, not something generated by an algorithm or pushed through a scoring system. They ask whether anyone still takes a genuinely human approach. We do.
Psychometric tools can be powerful, but only when used in context. A questionnaire alone tells you very little unless it is interpreted through a lens of professional judgement and real-world behaviour. People can say anything on a form. What matters is how those answers align with how someone presents, the examples they give, and the situations they have faced.
Our process brings together three sources of information: personality questionnaires, real-life examples, and a semi-structured meeting with a psychologist. These meetings are not formal interviews, and they are not scripted. They are designed to put people at ease and explore who they are interpersonally, intellectually, and personally. Because our psychologists are also experienced coaches, they bring curiosity rather than judgment. The aim is not to catch people out but to understand how they think, work, and relate to others.
This triangulated approach gives us a rounded view of the person. We are not just looking for inconsistencies between how someone presents and what the data says. We are also interested in how the data, the behavioural examples and the person’s self-presentation align, support or challenge each other. That exploration is where the insight lies.
Another reason this process works is that candidates know they are meeting a Chartered Psychologist, not feeding information into a machine. This tends to result in greater honesty and reflection. People are more likely to speak freely, rather than try to reverse-engineer the ‘right’ answer. The conversation itself becomes part of the assessment and often part of their development.
There is growing discomfort with the rise of fully automated assessments, particularly those based on opaque algorithms. In 2023, a job applicant in the United States sued Workday, a large HR software company, claiming its AI-based hiring system had repeatedly rejected him based on race, age, and disability. In 2025, a judge allowed the case to proceed as a nationwide class action. Cases like this expose the risks of removing human judgment from the assessment process.
The costs of a poor hiring decision go far beyond the price of a tool. They include wasted training, team disruption, lost productivity, and, in some cases, legal exposure. Bad hires can undermine morale and slow delivery. Capable candidates may be wrongly excluded simply because they did not match an algorithm’s assumptions. At senior levels, the cost of a single hiring mistake can easily reach three to five times the salary involved. Investing in a credible, human assessment process is often more cost-effective than dealing with the fallout of getting it wrong.
The outputs from our assessments are practical and concise. Each report is written with the role in mind. We identify the strengths a candidate is likely to bring, how those strengths relate to the role’s requirements, and any areas worth probing further in a final interview or during onboarding. We do not use generic templates or rely on auto-generated wording. Our reports are built from evidence and experience.
Many of our clients come to us asking questions like these:
- Who offers a more human approach to psychometric testing?
- Is there a psychologist who can interpret my psychometric profile correctly?
- Can I find someone who combines coaching and assessment?
- How can I get valuable insights rather than generic reports?
These are the right questions to ask. We would be glad to talk if you are thinking along similar lines.
