Ability Tests

Sensory Motor/Physical Cognitive

(e.g., hearing, (e.g., dexterity, (e.g., intelligence,
vision) strength, agility) aptitude)
 Cognitive Ability
(e.g., ability to learn, or potential to learn, and acquire new
knowledge and skill)

Spearman, C. (1904) ‘General intelligence,’ objectively determined and

measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293.

Also, differentiated general intelligence from specific (s) abilities (e.g., Spatial,
Perceptual, Mechanical, Verbal, Numerical)

• At present, over 20,000 articles and research reports on the relationship

between cognitive abilities and work criteria
 Cognitive Ability (cont.)

• About 50% of the variance in cognitive ability is due to g

• Roughly 8-10% due to verbal, quantitative, and spatial abilities

• Differences in specific abilities (verbal and numerical abilities, spatial,

perceptual, mechanical are due to differences in “investment” (or focus,
interest) in each area. Role of education, opportunity, influences, etc.
 The Wonderlic Personnel Test
• Wonderlic Personnel Test
▪ Developed in 1938, in wide use thereafter
▪ Is a 50 multiple-choice item test taken in 12 minutes
▪ Content—vocabulary, “commonsense” reasoning, formal
syllogisms, arithmetic reasoning and computation,
analogies, perceptual skill, spatial relations, number series,
scrambled sentences, and knowledge of proverbs.
▪ Primarily measures verbal comprehension, with deduction
and numerical fluency being the next two factors in order
of importance.

As of 2011, the tests have been administered to over 200 million people
Surveys have reported the use of CA tests to range from 11% to 27%
 ~ Differential Aptitude Tests ~

Designed to measure an individual's ability to learn or to

succeed in a number of different areas such as mechanical
reasoning, verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning, and
space relations.

Verbal Reasoning
Numerical Ability
Abstract Reasoning
Mechanical Reasoning
Space Relations
Language Usage
 Differential Aptitude Test (DAT)

Verbal Reasoning

..… is to water as eat is to ….. ..... is to night as breakfast is to …..

A. continue ----- drive A. supper ----- corner
B. foot ----- enemy B. gentle ----- morning
C. drink ----- food C. door ----- corner
D. girl ----- industry D. flow ----- enjoy
E. drink ----- enemy E. supper ----- morning

….. is to one as second is to …..

A. two ----- middle

B. first ----- fire
C. queen ----- hill
D. first ----- two
E. rain ----- fire
 Differential Aptitude Test (DAT)

Numerical Ability

Add
A. 8
30 B. 15
20 C. 16
D. 26
N. none of these

Add
A. 14
13 B. 16
12 C. 25
D. 59
N. none of these
 Differential Aptitude Test (DAT)

Abstract Reasoning

PROBLEM FIGURES

ANSWER FIGURES

A B C D E
 Differential Aptitude Test (DAT)

Abstract Reasoning (cont.)

PROBLEM FIGURES

ANSWER FIGURES

A B C D E
Differential Aptitude Test (DAT)

Mechanical Reasoning

A B

Which weighs more?

(If equal, mark C.)
 Mechanical
Reasoning (cont.)

Mechanical Reasoning Sample Test

 Differential Aptitude Test (DAT)

Space Relations

A B C D
Example Items Similar to Items on the Minnesota
Clerical Test

Name Comparison
Neal Schmitt ____________________________ Frank Schmidt
Hubert Feild ____________________________ Herbert Field
Chris Riordan ____________________________ Kris Reardan
Tim Judge ____________________________ Jim Fudge
Murray Barrick ____________________________ Mick Mount

Number Comparison
84644 ____________________________ 84464
179854 ____________________________ 176845
123457 ____________________________ 12457
987342 ____________________________ 987342
8877665994 ____________________________ 8876659954
 Cognitive Ability (cont.)

~ Measurement (Reliability) ~

Cognitive Ability Tests are among the most reliable assessments used in
organizational settings

Reliability estimates:

• Overall, about .88 - .90

• Test-retest (average interval 24 weeks) .83 (.65 - .95 range)

• Correlation between different tests (varying item type, content, format) = .77
_________________________________________

• Most reliable – Verbal and Numerical Abilities

• Less reliable – Spatial, Perceptual, Mechanical

 Cognitive Ability (cont.)
~ Measurement (Validity) ~
Cognitive Ability Tests are among the best predictors of job performance
across jobs and settings

➢ Individuals with high CA possess high levels of:

• Declarative Knowledge (facts, procedures, rules)

• Procedural Knowledge (what to do)

Cognitive Ability Job Knowledge Job Performance

(Moderator) (mostly supervisor
ratings)
 Cognitive Ability Tests (Managerial Performance)

Significant correlations of “g” with managerial performance

• Uncorrected = .25 to .35
• Corrected = .43 to .53 (Ghiselli, 1972; Hunter & Hunter, 1984)

Verbal Comprehension ---- .18

R = .52 (Verbal Reasoning and
Numerical Ability ---------- .42 Numerical Ability alone)
Visual Speed/Accuracy --- .41 Verbal Reasoning:

Space Visualization ------- .31 • Top managers - 98 percentile

• Middle managers - 95th percentile
Numerical Reasoning ---- .41
Numerical Ability:
Verbal Reasoning --------- .48
• Top managers -85th percentile
Word Fluency ------------- .37
• Middle managers -59th percentile
Symbolic Reasoning ------ .31
From: Grimsley & Jarrett (1973, 1975)
 The Validity of Mental Ability Tests

• Project A
▪ A multiple-year effort to develop a selection system
appropriate for all entry-level positions in the U.S. Army
▪ Involved the development of 65 predictor tests that could
be used as selection instruments
▪ Produced results indicating that general mental ability
tests are valid selection instruments across a large variety
of military jobs
Project A Validity Coefficients
Validity Across Jobs
Cognitive Ability Validity Versus Other Tests
 Other Selection Devices
Test Corr. with Corr. with CA Incremental
Performance Validity
Job Knowledge .40 - .50 .63 - .80 0 - .04

Work Sample .31 - .43 .30 - .50 .02 - .05

Assessment .31 - .39 .28 - .32 .02 - .05

Center (Problem
Solving)

Situational .19 - .26 ~ .32 0 - .01

Judgment Tests
Assessment ~ .44 (Mechanical .43 .13
Center (Overall) combination)
~ .31 (Holistic)
Interview .44 (high structure) .12 - .16* .09 - .12
Biodata .34 .37 .02
Source: Ones, Dilchert & Viswesvaran (2012)
Cognitive Ability and Interviews (Meta-analysis = .42 correlation)
Roth & Huffcutt (2013)

• Theoretical Reasons for a Relationship -

• Involve technical, problem solving, learning about policies & procedures

(describe past accomplishments)

• Require understanding of meaning, organization of answers, processing speed

• Impression management

Earlier meta-analysis reported an overall corrected correlation of .40 (Huffcutt,

Roth, & McDaniel, 1996)

More recent meta-analysis reported a noticeably lower corrected correlation of

.27 (Berry, Sackett, & Landers, 2007).
 Non-Cognitive Scales and Incremental Validity
Incremental
validity

So-called “compound” personality measures (included Trait EI assesses such things as

here) are NOT highly related to CA and provide decent self-esteem, stress management,
incremental validity adaptability, & emotional stability
 Cognitive Ability Predictive Power Across Time

Consistent tasks (behavior becomes automatic, effortless,

routine)

Predictive value of CA drops over time

Inconsistent tasks (job duties differ; tasks are “resource”

dependent)

Predictive value remains stable over time

 Validity Generalization or Situational Specificity

Can Cognitive Ability Tests Generalize Across Jobs or Does Individual

Validity Studies Need to be Conducted?

Situational Specificity

Validity coefficients for the same combination of mental ability tests and job
performance measures differ greatly for studies in different organizations

These differences were thought to be caused by undetermined organizational

factors that affected the correlation between selection instruments and criteria

Selection specialists concluded that a validation study is necessary for each

selection program developed.

Validity Generalization

Meta-analyses indicate the robust nature of general cognitive ability tests

Evidence for Validity Generalization
 Validity Generalization (cont.)

• Implications for Selection

▪ Conducting validity studies within each organization is
not needed
▪ No organizational effects on validity; the same predictor (selection
instrument) can be used across all organizations
◆ It is necessary only to demonstrate through job analysis that jobs are

similar to the job in the validity generalization study

▪ Task differences among jobs have little effect on the
validity coefficients of mental ability tests.
◆ Differing information-processing and problem-solving demands of
the job, not task differences themselves
 Cognitive Ability Tests (cont.)
» Strengths
• High reliability

• Criterion-related validity for wide range of jobs (especially high level positions
and high complexity jobs such as managerial positions)
• Group administration
• Ease of Scoring
• Relatively low cost (e.g., versus personality test)

 Weaknesses
• Likelihood for adverse impact (minorities score lower than non-minorities)
• Females score lower on tests of specific abilities (e.g., mechanical ability)
• Fails to consider acquired on-the-job knowledge
• Fails to incorporate other “types” of intelligence (e.g., emotional, practical)
 Overall, best to use in combination with other tests/inventories
 Assessing Emotion Scale (AES)
33 Items arranged on a 5-point scale
(“1” strongly disagree to “5” strongly agree)

• I find it hard to understand the non verbal messages of other people

• I am aware of the non verbal messages I send to others

• By looking at their facial expressions, I recognize the emotions people are experiencing

• I know why my emotions change

• I know what other people are feeling just by looking at them

• When another person tells me about an important event in history her life, I almost
feel as though I experienced this event myself

• When I feel a change in emotions, I tend to come up with new ideas

• I help other people feel better when they are down

• It is difficult for me to understand why people feel the way they do

• I can tell how people are feeling by listening to the tone of their voice.
Group Differences in Cognitive Ability Scores
 Types of Physical Ability Tests
Basic Ability Tests: Measures a single ability that consists of medical-related
information (e.g., aerobic capacity, heart rate)

ADA issue: Considered as a medical test. Must be given post offer.

• Can be used for multiple jobs

• Safe to administer

• Relatively inexpensive

Physical Ability Tests (e.g., lifting, running, jumping) and Job Simulation
Tests (those related to essential job tasks such as lifting/carrying objects, stair
climbing, carrying a fire hose, climbing a fence)

• Content valid

• Safety concerns; need for a larger testing area and additional equipment

• Scoring issues; sequencing of tests issue

 Determining Physical Requirements of Jobs

• Job Analysis

• Gather ergonomic, physiological, and biomechanical data

(if needed)

• Assess the role of work conditions on task performance

(e.g., temperature, cramped spaces, PPE)
 Physical Ability Tests
• Reasons for Physical Ability Testing
▪ More female applicants for male-dominated jobs
▪ Reducing the incidence of work-related injuries, lost
work days
▪ To determine the physical status of job applicants

• Legal Issues in Testing Physical Abilities

▪ Adverse impact for scores on physical ability tests
◆ Tests must clearly be linked to critical job tasks that require
physical abilities in their completion (Test must mirror the job
demands; Key role of on-site observation)
◆ Question is whether the tasks can be modified to reduce or
eliminate these physical demands (i.e., reasonable
accommodation for disabled applicants).
Texas city hit with police sex discrimination suit
CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN, Associated Press
Updated 7:13 p.m., Tuesday, July 3, 2012
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — The Justice Department sued the city of Corpus Christi on Tuesday, alleging
the Police Department discriminated in hiring women by using a physical ability test few female applicants
have been able to pass. Federal prosecutors say only about one in five women who took the test between
2005 and 2009 passed it, compared with about two-thirds of the men. The last two years the pass rates for
men and women increased due to a change in the cutoff scores, but the gap between men and women
persisted. The complaint filed in federal court in Corpus Christi says the department hired 12 female
entry-level officers and 113 males from 2005 to 2011.
http://www.cctexas.com/?fuseaction=main.view&page=2478
 Consent Decree (Settlement)

The consent decree requires that Corpus Christi no longer use the
physical abilities test challenged by the United States for selecting
entry-level police officers. It also requires the city to develop a new
selection procedure that complies with Title VII.

Additionally, the consent decree requires the city to pay $700,000 as back
pay to female applicants who took and failed the challenged physical
abilities test between 2005 and 2011 and are determined to be eligible for
relief. Also under the consent decree, some women who took and failed
the challenged physical abilities test between 2005 and 2011 may receive
offers of priority employment with retroactive seniority and
benefits.

Applicants interested in priority employment must pass the new, lawful

selection procedure developed by Corpus Christi under the decree and
meet other qualifications required of all applicants considered for entry-
level police officer positions.
 Physical Abilities
Fleishman’s 9 Categories
of Physical Abilities

Hogan’s 3 Categories of
Physical Performance
• Static strength
• Dynamic strength Muscular
• Explosive strength strength

• Trunk strength
• Extent flexibility
• Dynamic flexibility Movement
• Gross body coordination quality

• Gross body equilibrium

• Stamina Cardiovascular
endurance
 Physical Ability Categories (7)

Source: Baker & Gebhardt (2012). The assessment of physical capabilities in the
workplace.