Consistencies are a critical factor to help you trust the results of the PEAC evaluation. The easy way to understand them is to consider two words: Dominant and Yielding. These are very opposed words. One cannot be most like both of them (5) nor least like both of them (1). The answers must be diametrically opposed. 5-1, 2-4 and 3-3 are all acceptable. In fact, each of those answers would essentially represent a one hundred percent consistency.
       If the answers were 5-4, for example, that would represent only twenty percent. Put this concept over six hundred word combinations and the validity of the evaluation can be discovered, easily. In addition, any attempt to mask a trait, one or more, can be picked up, quickly.
       Because this is designed on a logrythmic scale, the variances are literally nothig from 70% and up. But they drop away drastically with anything that is less. For example, 68% might represent less than a quarter inch either way, not that critical. A 66-67, however, is a almost a half an inch either way.
       However, at 65%, the variance is an inch to either side of the end of the trait. That represents a two inch wide frame for error. One trait is not that critical, for simple interviewing tricks and observation can narrow the error. But two that are below 70% especially at or below 65% can represent an invalid evaluation. It is absolutely invalid with three out of place. With the low consistency traits varying that much, it is nearly impossible to pin them down.
       So, rather than retake the evaluation, which leads to further deviation, interviewing and references can pin down one trait, and… sometimes… two. If you are unsure, the very fact they tried to play with such an important step in their process, this evaluation, is something to consider in your training and management issues.
       The way to prevent poor consistencies is to control them in the beginning. Put a carrot in front of them: "Should we bring you on board, we will try to make you as successful as possible.” Right away, you have any intelligent candidate’s attention.
       Then, the explanation: “We will do that by tailoring our training and management to your style.” Entirely logical and you should get an easy acceptance.
       Close it: “Please take this evaluation for me. I will send you the particulars by email. What is your best email address?” Do not give them any other pointers. All you do with added information is give them ideas on how to defeat the evaluation! You can tailor this to people you ight be interviewing at your office, or even your in-house people. We recommend a simple Windows machine in the interview room or close by where they can sit down and fill out the form.
       Take a close look at the evaluation page. It has two spaces for the candidate's first and last name. Everything else at the top is regarding you or the manager’s information. Be sure to include that information in that email to the candidate. Explain that only Windows machines with Edge, Internet Explorer or Firefox perform with full efficiency. Anything else can either delay the process or fail to function. You can read up on this, yourself, at the homepage, then click 'Mgr Guides' and Administration. Do it well and receive open and honest results.