Intelligence Testing for the Workplace?
Cognitive ability tests that seek to measure intelligence, similar to the SAT, have been commonly used in organizations to successfully select personnel. But like any selection tool, there are practical advantages and disadvantages and this blog post examines the costs and benefits of using such assessments for selection purposes.
Several organizations have implemented assessments that tap into General Mental Ability (GMA) into the workplace to help predict job performance. Related to several sub-types of intelligence, GMA has become one of the more powerful constructs to measure for selection. Tests that measure GMA are low cost and easy to administer. A popular and commonly used GMA test is the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT), because it only takes applicants 12 minutes to complete and costs roughly five dollars per person.
While GMA tests are simple and cost effective in measuring intelligence, in some contexts, they do not work as well, especially when hiring for leadership positions. While leadership and intelligence are certainly correlated, sometimes intelligence may not be the single most important factor to predict job performance. Leadership positions tend to require skills beyond intelligence, like management experience and interpersonal skills.
Many people do not think that taking a test actually predicts future job performance. While cognitive ability tests might be helpful hiring tools for organizations, some participants may perceive cognitive ability tests as having less validity which can subsequently make them feel less motivated and ultimately perform poorly.
Another disadvantage to using GMA tests is that it could potentially be racially discriminating. In a 30-year study comparing intelligence between racial groups in America, the results found that there are differences in GMA between some minorities, compared to white Americans (more on this later about how to interpret and implement, as well as make sense of this research that personally upsets us).
An illustrative example of the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT) administered by the National Football League (NFL) brings depth to understanding this phenomena. The NFL administers the WPT to all players who seek to be drafted into the League, along with other tests of physical ability, strength and agility. Some have questioned the League’s use of the WPT, as it does not predict future success in the NFL, but it does measure two important forms of intelligence: crystallized and fluid intelligence. Crystallized intelligence can be thought of as “permanent” intelligence that builds with age and experience, while fluid intelligence relates more to processing speed and typically decreases with age. A current example a WPT scores for NFL quarterbacks: Tom Brady scored a 33, and Tim Tebow scored a 22. The average score for quarterbacks in the NFL is 24, so some may argue that Brady's increased success is a result of his superior IQ.
The NFL’s use of the WPT has not predicted that Black players perform more poorly than White players, which may be in part because black players represent the majority in the NFL, which is atypical from most job-application settings. Some have speculated that the NFL may not use the WPT in order to predict success in the NFL but instead, they might use it as a baseline measure of intelligence and then examine players on a case-by-case basis. For example, if a player passes tests of physical ability with flying colors but scores in the 10th percentile on the WPT, teams may want to proceed with caution in drafting this player.
Clearly, it is a complex issue. In the real world, no choice for selection is perfect and oftentimes must be used in conjunction with multiple methods. Using tests of cognitive ability have high levels of success in predicting future job performance, but their use in organizations depends on many factors:
HR professionals administering the assessment need to be clear on how and why they are using the assessment. They need to understand that the test is ideally used for a predictive purposes, rather than just to measure intelligence for the sake of it.
Recognize that there may be differences in GMA between whites and some minorities, but keep in mind our American cultural frame that all people are created equal. Holding these two polarities can be complex and uncomfortable.
Using these instruments could save organizations considerable amounts of money because of their substantial predictive validity, but might result in adversely impacting some minority groups compared to white Americans.
Ultimately, these tests are very effective but can also be racially discriminating. Morally and legally, organizations refrain from using these selection tools, however, this contradicts what many organizational psychologists subscribe to: predicting future performance using scientific instruments. Moving forward, HR professionals need to be firmly aware of the inherent risks and benefits with using these instruments and be prepared to take a stand on one side of the issue or the other. Is the priority to maintain accuracy and hire the best talent, which may racially discriminate? Or is the priority to enforce equal opportunity for all, but potentially hire candidates that may not be the most qualified? An organization might throw away its ability to predict top performance in order to satisfy equally daunting issues with regards to disparate impact. On both sides of the debate, the risks are substantial but it’s important to understand the nuances in order to objectively evaluate both sides to make an informed decision.
Selected references:
Chan, D. (1997). Racial subgroup differences in predictive validity perceptions on personality and cognitive ability tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 311-320.
Gill, A., & Brajer, V. (2012). Wonderlic, race, and the NFL draft. Journal of Sports Economics, 13, 642-653. Gottfredson, L. (2005). What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(2), 311-319.
Judge, T., Colbert, A., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 542-552.
Kuncel, N., Ones, D., & Sackett, P. (2010). Individual differences as predictors of work, educational, and broad life outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(4), 331-336.
Leverett, J. P., Matthews, T. D., Lassiter, K. S., & Bell, N. L. (2001). Validity comparison of the general ability measure for adults with the Wonderlic Personnel Test. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 172-182.
Lyons, B. D., Hoffman, B.J., & Michel, J. W. (2009). Not much more than g? An examination of the impact of intelligence on NFL performance. Human Performance, 22, 225–245.
Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235–294.
Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.