Transcript Ability Tests Sensory (e.g., hearing, vision) Motor/Physical (e.g., dexterity, strength, agility) Cognitive (e.g., intelligence, aptitude) Cognitive Ability (e.g., ability to learn, or potential to learn, and acquire new knowledge and skill) Spearman,

Ability Tests
Sensory
(e.g., hearing,
vision)
Motor/Physical
(e.g., dexterity,
strength, agility)
Cognitive
(e.g., intelligence,
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.
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
Cognitive Ability
Tests
Job Knowledge
(Moderator)
Job Performance
• Task Performance (mainly supervisor
ratings)
• Contextual Performance (e.g., OCBs)
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 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
Numerical Ability ---------- .42
R = .52 (Verbal Reasoning and
Numerical Ability alone)
Visual Speed/Accuracy --- .41
Verbal Reasoning:
Space Visualization ------- .31
• Top managers - 98 percentile
Numerical Reasoning ---- .41
• Middle managers - 95th percentile
Verbal Reasoning --------- .48
Word Fluency ------------- .37
Symbolic Reasoning ------ .31
Numerical Ability:
• Top managers -85th percentile
• Middle managers -59th percentile
From: Grimsley & Jarrett (1973, 1975)
Cognitive Ability Validity Versus Other Tests
Other Selection Devices
Test
Corr. with
Performance
Corr. with CA
Incremental
Validity
Job Knowledge
.40 - .50
.63 - .80
0 - .04
Work Sample
.31 - .43
.30 - .50
.02 - .05
Assessment
Center (Problem
Solving)
.31 - .39
.28 - .32
.02 - .05
Situational
Judgment Tests
.19 - .26
~ .32
0 - .01
Assessment
Center (Overall)
~ .44 (Mechanical
combination)
~ .31 (Holistic)
.43
.13
Interview
.40 (high structure)
.12 - .16
.09 - .12
Biodata
.34
.37
.02
Source: Ones, Dilchert & Viswesvaran (2012)
Non-Cognitive Scales and Incremental Validity
Incremental
validity
So-called “compound” personality measures (included
here) are NOT highly related to CA and provide decent
incremental validity
Trait EI assesses such things as
self-esteem, stress management,
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
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%
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
Differential Aptitude Test (DAT)
Verbal Reasoning
..… is to water as eat is to …..
..... is to night as breakfast is to …..
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
continue ----- drive
foot ----- enemy
drink ----- food
girl ----- industry
drink ----- enemy
….. is to one as second is to …..
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
two ----- middle
first ----- fire
queen ----- hill
first ----- two
rain ----- fire
supper ----- corner
gentle ----- morning
door ----- corner
flow ----- enjoy
supper ----- morning
Differential Aptitude Test (DAT)
Numerical Ability
Add
30
20
A. 8
B. 15
C. 16
D. 26
N. none of these
Add
13
12
A. 14
B. 16
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.)
Differential Aptitude Test (DAT)
Space Relations
A
B
C
D
Example Items Similar to Items on the Minnesota
Clerical Test
Name Comparison
Neal Schmitt
____________________________
Hubert Feild
____________________________
Chris Riordan
____________________________
Tim Judge
____________________________
Murray Barrick ____________________________
Frank Schmidt
Herbert Field
Kris Reardan
Jim Fudge
Mick Mount
Number Comparison
84644
____________________________
179854
____________________________
123457
____________________________
987342
____________________________
8877665994
____________________________
84464
176845
12457
987342
8876659954
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 entrylevel police officer positions.
Physical Abilities
Fleishman’s 9 Categories
of Physical Abilities
• Static strength
• Dynamic strength
• Explosive strength
Hogan’s 3 Categories of
Physical Performance
Muscular
strength
• Trunk strength
• Extent flexibility
• Dynamic flexibility
• Gross body coordination
Movement
quality
• Gross body equilibrium
• Stamina
Cardiovascular
endurance
Physical Ability Categories (7)
Source: Baker & Gebhardt (2012). The assessment of physical capabilities in the
workplace.