Should someone applying to work with people need to take an aptitude test?

Thinking of teachers, social workers, nursery workers, nurses and carers in old people's homes amongst others.
You need to take one to work in a bank or even to get a job at B&Q (up till a few years ago, did it myself once).
And all the horror stories that come from 'caring' professions ... should carers/people workers be vetted for suitability in a caring position?
Answers on a postcard please :-)

I used to work in a field related to aptitude testing and have done some study on the linking of job performance and aptitude tests. Having the right test for the job is known as the validity of a test. Having an aptitude test with math, English and logic for say, a caregiver's or even a salesman's job is totally INVALID. There is no correlation between a person's score on the test and his or her on-the-job performance.

However, many companies have HRs who either don't care or simply don't understand the relevance of the right kind of tests. They use it as a screening mechanism to reduce the number of candidates they need to interview. They need to use the right kind of psychometric test, but all of those are expensive, so they end up using common aptitude tests.

Sure, why not?

A good idea but will not guarantee adequate performance as a carer.

--That Cheeky Lad

I had to take one for one job I had. Very simply, the company put all 20 some of us who'd applied for a job in any capacity that day into the same room. They told us up front that there would be no "right" or "wrong" answers to their questions. They were simply looking for outgoing, pleasant personality types. Then for the next hour, 3 interviewers took turns asking each of us questions.

At the end of the test, there was me and one other lady who were sent upstairs for private interviews. We were hired.

We were tested and rated along the way by "customers" who really worked for the company. And they made the job as pleasant as they possibly could for us. Having found personnel that was good with people, they did everything they could to make us want to stay there.

They should.

I was scanning the job page today and disgusted to see an advert offering just over 5 quid 5.35 or something like that an hour. This was for relief staff in an old peoples home. My son gets more than that in his holiday jobs per hour. So while I agree that people should be vetted for any caring profession I also think they should be valued for what they do.

I worked in an old peoples home about 8 years ago now. And I can honestly say it was the hardest most physical and emotionally draining job I have ever done. If we truly want to look after our older people we should value the people who look after them.

All those professions do (apart from nursing/care assistants, where the training is less rigorous). They must have a relevant qualification, which has involved assessed practical work, and they need to be vetted by the Criminal Records Bureau.

Although the press likes to sensationalise failures (e.g. the Victoria Climbie case), such events are extremely rare, in the overall scheme of things.

Its an idea but in all those professions its hard to get anyone and you would end up with no one prepared to do the work.

What do you mean by "answers on a postcard"?

'Caring' professionals have to take at least NVQ2/3, and get a CRB check. The NVQ should ensure that they at least know what they should be doing even if they aren't.

Teachers & Social Workers normally have 4 yrs study before qualifying, then a probationary period.

a good aptitude shows the interest to anykind of work.So, aptitude really matters to mark a persons caliber