Winfred Alarcon

MGT 461
Final Paper
5/12/15
While there are many options an employer can chose to take when it
comes to making a hiring decision, it is not uncommon to put an employee
through some sort of battery test. Most employers now a days use a test
known as a Cognitive Ability test.
General cognitive ability tests, which are also known as aptitude tests
or general intelligence assessments, are considered to be one of the most
powerful predictors of an employees future work performance. This is the
reason why many companies chose to use this time of test. Some of the
cognitive ability test comprises of numerical, verbal and abstract reasoning
questions. The results that are obtained form a test of this nature, will
usually reflect the test takers ability to retain, acquire, apply and organize
information. The cognitive ability test will assess abilities that involve
thinking; this usually will apply memory, reasoning, perception,
mathematical and verbal abilities. The cognitive ability test will pose certain
questions that are designed to estimate the applicants use of a mental
process in order to solve work related problems in order to acquire new
information. Conventionally, one of the major traits measured in the
cognitive ability test is referred to as intelligence or general mental
ability. Nevertheless, an intelligence test will often include various types of
items that will measure different and or more specific metal factors, which

are often referred to as specific mental abilities. Some examples of such

items will include arithmetic computations, verbal analogies, reading
comprehension, number series completion, and spatial relations (i.e.,
visualizing objects in three-dimensional space).
When looking at the application of cognitive ability test in an
organization, it is said to be most powerful and important predictor of job
performance. Many managers and practitioners will often include this type of
test in their selection process as a part of accepted practice. Yet when
looking at higher-level managerial jobs, many organization partners argue
the relevance of cognitive ability testing given the perceived range restriction
within this highly educated applicant group. Some organizations push back
on cognitive ability testing at the most senior levels because of the academic
achievements required and because of notion that social and emotional
intelligence are arguably more valuable differentiators at this level. In
addition, in a market that puts these higher-level candidates at a premium,
recruiters consistently raise the issue of improving candidate experience by
minimizing candidates time investment in assessment. Although the typical
client organization is working to select from two to three top candidates,
many candidates have at least one job offer in hand when coming in to
interview. The squabble boils down to this: They are all smart; we dont
need to measure problem solving.
Some, if not all-cognitive ability test will sum up the correct answers to
all the questions and obtain an overall score that will represent a measure

the general mental ability. If an individuals score is computed for each of the
specific types of abilities for example: numeric, verbal, and reasoning then
the resulting scores represents measures of the specific mental abilities.
Traditional cognitive tests are well standardized, contain items reliably
scored, and can be administered to large groups of people at one time.
Examples of item formats include multiple choice, sentence completion,
short answer, or true false. Many professionally developed cognitive tests are
available commercially and may be considered when there is no significant
need to develop a test that refers specifically to the particular job or
organization. According to organizational psychologists often work in settings
where they would need need to demonstrate understanding of the current
literature and provide a balanced discussion of cognitive ability testing. We
can look at several recent articles touching on elements of the cognitive
ability discussion. I will provide a case to refocus on job analysis as a way to
support the use of specific cognitive ability assessments that align with
cognitively laden tasks such as executive decision making. According to
Schmidt (2012), there is a challenge to the notion that content validity is not
an appropriate model for cognitive ability. An approach that does not include
content validity leaves us saying, Trust my expertise. When looking at
specific managerial jobs because the numbers are often too low for criterionrelated validity studies. Some companies have often relied on the research
supporting generalized cognitive ability, to support the need for cognitive

testing. The Schmidt article demonstrates that with the proper job-analytic
and content-validity procedures, cognitive ability measures to include tests
that are de facto measures of cognitive ability test can demonstrate content
validity in addition to criterion-related and construct validity.
Human Resource Selection (2011) talks about how the cognitive ability
test underlies performance of all kinds and that leaders are tasked with
challenging decisions. Like job analysis, attention has turned to other
elements of the leaders role. Local criterion-related validation studies are
often not possible because of sample size. Companies rely on validitygeneralization studies and transfer validity based on studies published in
manuals. Schmidts description of the observable outputs from cognitive
tasks illustrates that problem-solving inputs and outputs are observable. He
describes that all tasks, including typing, have an associated mental process
and that the distinction of problem solving as mental rather than observable
is a false one. Kehoe (2012) further clarifies Schmidts argument by
suggesting that all KSAs have a cognitive element to them and that KSAs
and work behavior are manifestations of specific cognitive capabilities. Thus,
executive roles can be analyzed to identify the work behaviors critical to
successful analysis and decision-making. Therefore, he argues, appropriate
experts should be able to identify the specific measurable cognitive abilities
that underlie KSAs and ultimately job behavior.
Kehoe summarizes the series of arguments required to support
content validity evidence for cognitive ability tests. Identify the cognitive

skills and aptitudes associated with the work domain and the link between
these behaviors and job performance through job analysis and expert
evaluation. Identify an appropriate sample of the work content domain for
testing; this should include the work content that is most important for job
performance.
Experts must match the test content to the work content, which is a key part
of the content validation argument. Content evidence supports the inference
that the test content represents the cognitive skills and aptitudes required
for successful performance on the job. Kehoe recommends that while the
Principles suggest that content validity supports the argument for utilizing
tests as a predictor in the selection process, a company should be able do
better. The author also suggests that, while working with cognitive ability
tests within the realm of selection context, an additional step should be
taken in the job analysis process. Particularly, the author argues that a
professional should rate the extent to which each operationalized
skill/aptitude included in the test is identified with more cognitive ability test
factors. When job descriptions have terms such as learning agility, strategic
thinking, and risk management, there is an opportunity to define the tasks
relative to cognitive ability test by linking the skills/aptitudes.
Finally, helping a hiring managers understand the content validity
evidence for cognitive abilities and providing shared understanding of the
cognitive skills that underlie successful performance assists them in having
richer candidate discussions during integration sessions. The case for face

validity is also enhanced when clear connections are drawn, such that
recruiters and candidates see the relevance of the assessments.
Transparency into the link between cognitive components of managerial jobs
and the selection tools is heightened by leveraging this group of articles.

Works Cited
Kehoe, J. F. (2012). What to make of content validity evidence for cognitive
tests? Comments on
Schmidt. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(1), 1418.
McKenzie, J., Morgan, C., Woolf, N., & van Winkelen, C. (2009). Cognition in
strategic decision making.
Menkes, Justin. (2005). Hiring smart. Harvard Business Review, 83(11),

100109.
Schmidt, F. L. (2012). Cognitive tests used in selection can have content
validity as well as criterion validity: A broader research review and
implications for practice.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(1), 113.
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2003). Principles for
the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.)
Bowling Green, OH: Author.