Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In almost every test their is an exposure issue. That doesn't mean it doesn't measure cognitive ability, it's similar to the GRE, LSAT, etc. They are general aptitude tests. Exposure can only increase scores to a certain amount.
Seeing it one time before may have helped, but if he were to take it again there would likely be no benefit. Most people have seen the Wonderlic before. Plus exposure may help you score 2-3 higher, but it won't change someone from a score of 20 to a score of 35. If they are doing top down selection based off of the Wonderlic they have more issues than just the test as everyone that knows anything about measurement knows about the standard error of measurement, which is why organizations band tests instead of using top down selection.
I'm more in favor of tests that are more specific for relevant skills and ability. If I were hiring a chemist I'd want to see that he could do dilution factors, know chemical principles, and be familiar with analytical instrumentation and how to use them. Also, I'd be more interested to see he/she was able to do them than how many he could do in 12 minutes.
The wonderlic is a bit more murky in that it is influenced by exposure, test taking stategies, and more than anything else speed. I'd rather see the test given with more generous time constraints to measure more if the person had the ability to do the problems and use that for screening rather than trying to screen for IQ which is more murky. If someone scores a 5 on the exam than yea I can see using it to screen out someone who might not have the inteligence for the job but to use it to say that the people who score 27's would be better employees than those scoring 19's I don't buy it.
I'm not opposed to such a test but imposing aggressive time limits
makes the test less about intelligence and more about efficient test taking strategies.
Ability to use such strategy being yet another useful and practical skill worth measuring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
I'm more in favor of tests that are more specific for relevant skills and ability.
The wonderlic is a bit more murky... yea I can see using it to screen out someone who
might not have the intelligence for the job
Don't worry. There will be more tests to cull out more applicants.
Quote:
but to use it to say that the people who score 27's would be better employees
than those scoring 19's I don't buy it.
Is someone saying that this is the case?
Last edited by MrRational; 08-14-2013 at 08:52 AM..
These types of tests pretty much defined my whole career in IT. Just had to ace it one time and it made a difference if youre starting on the network/unix/support/services side (lower score), mainframe/midrange (high score/conservative), Window programming (high score/finished test with lots of time to spare).
I'm more in favor of tests that are more specific for relevant skills and ability. If I were hiring a chemist I'd want to see that he could do dilution factors, know chemical principles, and be familiar with analytical instrumentation and how to use them. Also, I'd be more interested to see he/she was able to do them than how many he could do in 12 minutes.
The wonderlic is a bit more murky in that it is influenced by exposure, test taking stategies, and more than anything else speed. I'd rather see the test given with more generous time constraints to measure more if the person had the ability to do the problems and use that for screening rather than trying to screen for IQ which is more murky. If someone scores a 5 on the exam than yea I can see using it to screen out someone who might not have the inteligence for the job but to use it to say that the people who score 27's would be better employees than those scoring 19's I don't buy it.
I don't disagree, I seldom see the Wonderlic actually used in personnel hiring (I've only seen it actually used once). The NFL makes sense because quick thinking is an important aspect.
I think there is room for both technical testing and cog testing. Sure you want someone who knows the instrumentation, but unless the job is static and never changing you also want someone who is able to comprehend complex novel ideas and such. If I take a chemistry class I may know how to read the instrumentation and I may know standard dilution factors, etc. But what if something unexpected happens in the lab? The more intelligent person will be able to string similar albeit different scenarios together quickly to come up with a quick solution despite the fact the issue has never come up before.
Bottom line, obviously you don't want a brilliant mechanical engineer as a chemist, but at the same time you don't want just any trained chemist when you could get both a trained and intelligent chemist.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,576 posts, read 81,167,557 times
Reputation: 57808
Whether or not a specific test results in the best candidates is open for debate, and companies are constantly trying the newest test methods trying to find the best. Some do personality evaluations (not tests) such as the Birkman, and have had good success with it. What it comes down to is whether or not it works or seems fair to the person left out, they have the right to use any methods they want to reduce the number of applicants to a manageable number, and to try and determine which best suits the position they are filling. Like age, (too old or too young) complaining about testing is another way of justifying one's lack of success in finding a new job. It's really just the numbers. When there are over 100 applicants for one opening, you have to be the best to get it. Most people probably think they are the best but the fact is the chances of being chosen as the best of 100 are very low.
I applied for a web design internship and was called for a "possible" interview, but only after I pass the aptitude test. I asked the employer via email what this test consists of so I can prepare for it, and he said that it was a general test and there was nothing to study for.
I said okay. So I went to the office with nothing to study for. All I've googled from aptitude tests were just puzzles you find in generic IQ tests.
The lady(at the front desk who was not the employer) gave me a packet, and asked me to work in another room. The packet consists of 5 pages of problems that you normally get in a college algebra course(some of it was logic and puzzles). She gave me, 12 minutes to finish these tests. So I did the best I could. Some of those questions took a bit of time to answer correctly. I only managed to reach about 2 pages. And when the test was done, the lady checked and told me that I didn't answer enough questions, therefore not qualify for an interview. At that moment, I wanted to cry. I wanted to send the employer and email and say "What the **** was that for?!"
I left the building, in tears, in absolute anger that my 2 hours of my time was wasted(I take a bus to the building.) I wanted to cuss out the employer and say "Why". Why the living hell of all things would you bring math questions in a job that consists of designing things?! What does that have to do with my skills in HTML, CSS, Photoshop, all the adobe products, concepts of design, which I study very hard for?! I didn't even get a chance to show off my skills.
If there was a test that consists of HTML and Adobe Creative Suite, I would have grabbed all of my design textbooks and spend all night studying for it. Making sure I remembered everything there is to know about the topic.
What does this have to do with being a web designer?! Why do I have to answer some irrelevant aptitude test?
Whenever I hired someone, I put them through an actual project first -- something that could be done on their off time. That way, I could see their thinking, their attention to detail, and their general knowledge.
In your case, having dealt with my fair share of graphic designers and web designers, I can tell you that some basic mathematical understanding is crucial. Yeah, maybe more in print than in web, but it's still there. I mean, just figuring markup percentages on estimates seems to be beyond the grasp of most people. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain a simple algebraic equation to otherwise educated people.
The job market right now--and for the near future--is a buyer's market. That's a way of saying that the employer will hold most of the cards until the economy improves. The reason you have a demand for credentials unnecessary to do a job, aptitude tests, psychological profile tests, and credit checks is simple. In the present economy, the employer can find applicants who will do well on all of the above.
If I put out an advertisement for a secretary, legal assistant, or paralegal, I would have approximately 40 applicants or more for each position. I'm talking about a job that pays about $9 an hour to start and is part time. Interviewing that many applicants is a very time consuming project. I used to interview everyone out of courtesy, but I can't do it anymore because of time constraints. Also, I know that applicants who do poorly on a word processing test given at the local Work Force Services office tend to not be successful employees at my office based on years of experience.
Whether I ought to be able to or not, I can demand computer skills (both Word and Excel) and I generally even get bilingual applicants which are highly desirable in my community.
I don't dispute that all this seems "unfair" from the standpoint of the job applicant. However, it doesn't change the characteristics of the job market. The employer will always hire the best applicant available unless he wants to give a family member or friend a position.
Your best hope is that the market eventually shifts more in favor of the employee. Right now, those who desire a decent job are going to have to acquire additional skills that make them stand out. That's today's reality. I can't do anything to change it.
I assume the questions aren't all that easy and ramp up in difficulty if you have bright people scoring in the high 20s and low 30s.
they range in difficulty, but many are that easy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
