Cognitive abilities in personnel selection: what tests of thinking ability show

The result reports open with one statement: the ability to solve different types of problems is the characteristic that matters most for a person’s performance at work. Reasoning ability predicts job performance for tasks of all levels of difficulty. However, its effect is greater the more complex the task.

For selection, this means: the more a role demands in terms of problem solving and decision making, the more weight the question of thinking ability carries. How much weight it receives in an individual case follows from the requirements profile.

The test checks whether a person can grasp hidden connections, fill gaps where no information is given, discover relationships between objects and recognise similarities between different figures. What is required is logical reasoning, not specialist knowledge.

The result is placed in one of three categories, measured against a norm group. In the result report, “low” covers the 16 per cent of the norm group with the lowest results (0 to 3 out of 10 points), “average” the middle 68 per cent (4 to 6 points) and “high” the 16 per cent with the highest results (7 to 10 points). An arrow marks where the person’s result lies.

People with a high score find it easy to solve tasks that require logical reasoning. They presumably get to grips quickly with very different tasks and perform above average. Their managers probably perceive them as more effective than people with lower scores.

People with an average score have an average ability to solve such problems. They probably learn their tasks at a normal pace and show average performance.

People with a low score have difficulty with tasks that require logical reasoning. They probably need more time than average to learn tasks and perform less well on many tasks. However, the report explicitly states that they can compensate for a lower score with a conscientious working style.

The wording is deliberately cautious. “Presumably” and “probably” show that a test score is a statement of probability and not a certainty about a person.

The second procedure was developed specifically for managers and executives. It provides information on strategic and tactical thinking and combines both into a score for critical thinking.

Strategic thinking describes the ability to evaluate current business practices from a strategic perspective and to understand how new trends and technological innovations influence future business development. People with high scores focus on long-term issues and find solutions that combine the needs of different business units. They recognise new problems quickly, come across as innovative, curious and interested in feedback, and have a high tolerance of ambiguity.

Tactical thinking describes the ability to draw reasonable and defensible conclusions from available data and information. People with high scores focus on short-term problems, which they solve one after the other. They anticipate the consequences of decisions and recognise obstacles to implementation. In decision-making processes they are disciplined and come across as reliable, precise, detail-oriented and professional.

Critical thinking describes the ability to recognise and solve complex problems: balancing short- and long-term goals, linking innovation with implementation, recognising assumptions, understanding agendas and assessing arguments. According to the report, critical thinking predicts general performance in many occupations.

The scores are reported as percentiles and placed on a scale from low through lower average to high and very high. According to the report, the procedure’s norm is based on a sample of 2,500 MBA students, applicants for senior roles and executives and managers. A percentile therefore shows how a result compares with this group, not with the population as a whole.

Since strategic and tactical thinking describe different strengths, it is worth looking at both sub-scores and not just at the overall score. Which profile a role needs follows from its requirements profile.

A test of thinking ability is one component of aptitude assessment, not a substitute for it. The point of reference is the requirements profile of the role: what has to be done, decided and handled there? Only against this can one judge whether a result is sufficient for the specific task. A selection process for managers therefore combines several perspectives, such as an interview, a specialist sample task, reflection on leadership situations and a personality assessment with feedback.

What a test measures, what an interview shows and what is known from observed work remain distinguishable. Contradictions are examined rather than being netted out into a seemingly clear single score. The procedure includes a feedback conversation with the person.

Test results on thinking ability say more about potential than about performance. Potential is a person’s capacity to learn from job-related experience, that is, the ability to perform in unfamiliar situations. In the competency model that transformis describes for assessing managers, characteristics such as complexity, recognising connections, critical thinking and problem solving belong to the potential factor of mental agility. A high test score therefore says nothing yet about how someone actually handles their current tasks. The difference between performance and potential is described in a separate article.

It says nothing about personality, values and motivation, about behaviour under pressure or about everyday leadership behaviour. There are separate procedures and perspectives for these, such as a personality assessment or 360-degree feedback. Nor does it show how conscientiously someone works, and that is precisely what can compensate for a lower result.

In addition, norm values always apply to a specific procedure and a specific norm group. Current norms and legal requirements must be checked separately for the chosen procedure. Before use, the decision question, the choice of procedure, qualified administration, feedback and the handling of personal results are agreed.

The basis is two templates for result reports from transformis personnel assessment (Cognitive abilities, V 1.1): one report on reasoning and one on strategic and tactical thinking. The information on norm groups and score ranges comes from these templates and applies to the procedures described there. The classification within the selection process follows existing transformis page texts on aptitude assessment, requirements profiles and potential assessment.