Applicant

Potential
Test A.P.T.

Developed by J. M. Llobet, Ph.D.

Administrator’s Manual
©2009 EDI #T0155DL
Table of Contents

HR•Assessments® Products: An Investment in Your Company’s Future . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Use of Assessment Products as “Tools” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Legal Aspects of Assessment Use and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Assessment Products and “Adverse Impact” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Federal Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Title VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Americans with Disabilities Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Recordkeeping Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

State and Local Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Assessment Selection and Follow-Up Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Importance of Cognitive Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Description of the A.P.T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Using Job Analysis to Justify Use of Assessment and Its Sections

(Legal Implications) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Administration Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Scoring Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Interpretation and Use of Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Discussing Results of the A.P.T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Applicant Potential Test

Table of Contents (continued)

Validity and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Validity Study #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Validity Study #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Validity Study #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Revised A.P.T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

To ensure that you are obtaining the full benefits available to you from the use of
HR•Assessments® products, please read all information contained in this manual carefully.
By using this assessment product, you are acknowledging that you have read and understand
the general guidelines provided in this manual, and that if you have any specific questions,
you have referred them to a competent testing and/or legal expert for advice. The test
developer and publisher do not assume liability for any unlawful use of this product.
The test developer and publisher do not assume any responsibility for the employer’s use of this test or any decision the
employer makes which may violate local, state or federal law. By selling this test, the publisher is not giving legal advice.

Applicant Potential Test

HR•Assessments® Products: An Investment in Your Company’s Future
The decision to use assessment products in the employment process is one that can be very
beneficial to your company in many ways. A well-designed, properly validated assessment,
when used in conjunction with other employment screening tools, can save your company
from investing training resources in an applicant who is not suited to perform the job for
which he or she was hired, and, as a consequence, can help protect your company from
negligent-hiring lawsuits.

Each HR•Assessments product has been researched and developed by our in-house staff of
testing professionals, which includes experienced industrial psychologists.

Use of Assessment Products as “Tools”

Validity studies of the assessment products we offer have shown them to be predictive
of job performance and therefore quite useful during the selection process. It is important
to remember that assessments should be used in conjunction with other, equally important
employment screening tools – such as criminal background checks, work histories and employer
references – to present a balanced picture of the particular job candidate. Only when used in
coordination with one another will you be able to truly determine a “fit” between the candidate
and the particular job for which he or she is applying.

Employment assessments, as defined in this manual, can be of several different varieties,

including trustworthiness or integrity assessments, skills-oriented assessments and personality
assessments. Each assessment can center on one of these elements, or may include several
different components, assessing a variety of factors. Choosing the proper assessment product
for your needs is a key factor in making your selection process more effective.

Legal Aspects of Assessment Use and Administration

Although employment assessments have been in use for more than 40 years, their use
became more prevalent after the passage of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA)
of 1988, which made it illegal for most private employers to use polygraph examinations as
a routine pre-employment screening tool. Employment assessments that are not prohibited
by the EPPA are designed to give the employer a legal way to gauge an employee’s job-related
skills and personality traits as an alternative to the polygraph test. Whereas the polygraph
test is designed to monitor an applicant’s physiological reactions to certain questions, the
employment assessments seek to gain information on the job candidate through a series
of questions designed to measure job-related attributes.

Today, the use of employment assessments continues to increase. Many of the country’s
largest corporations use such screening devices on a regular basis, and have found great
success in using them to hire and promote the best candidates.

Applicant Potential Test

4
Assessment Products and “Adverse Impact”
A common misperception of these assessments is that they all tend to discriminate against
certain classes of applicants, in violation of state and federal laws against discrimination in
employment decisions. In fact, this is not the case. Although there is evidence of poorer
performance by some members of protected classes on some skills tests that include language
and mathematical components, the use of such tests is still justified, so long as the skills
assessed by the test are essential for the successful performance of one or more of the job’s key
functions. In addition, researchers have found no evidence that well-constructed personality
assessments discriminate on any unlawful basis.

However, it is incumbent upon employers who use assessment products to continually

monitor selection procedures to ensure that no “adverse impact” is occurring in the overall
selection process. Adverse impact is defined as a situation in which there is a substantially
different rate of selection in hiring, promoting or other employment decisions that works
to the disadvantage of members of a race, sex or ethnic group. If adverse impact does occur,
the employer needs to be able to demonstrate the job-relatedness of the selection process. For
further guidance in this area, read the Assessment Selection and Follow-Up Procedures section of
this manual.

Federal Laws
There are federal laws and regulations governing the use of “selection” tools, such as
employment assessments, insofar as they have any “adverse impact” on the employment
opportunities of protected classes of individuals. Some of the more subtle aspects of these
laws as they apply to the selection process are discussed in the section of this manual titled,
Using Job Analysis to Justify Use of Assessment and Its Sections (Legal Implications).

Title VII
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), covering employers with 15 or more
employees, prohibits discrimination in employment decisions on the basis of race, sex, color,
religion and national origin. Title VII authorizes the use of “any professionally developed
ability test, provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results, is not designed,
intended or used to discriminate” on any unlawful basis. In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court,
in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (401 U.S. 424), adopted the standard that employer practices
that had an adverse impact on minorities and were not justified by a business necessity
violated Title VII. Congress amended Title VII in 1972, adopting this legal standard.

As a result of these developments, the government sought to produce a unified governmental

standard on the regulation of employee selection procedures because the separate government
agencies had enforcement powers over private employers, and each used different standards.
This resulted in the adoption of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures
(Guidelines), codified at 29 CFR Part 1607, which established a uniform federal position
in the area of prohibiting discrimination in employment practices on the grounds of race,
color, religion, sex or national origin, and applies to all public and private employers covered
by Title VII, Executive Order 11246, the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and the Intergovernmental Personnel
Act of 1970.

Applicant Potential Test

5
Highlights of the Guidelines include:

Provision of a uniform set of principles governing use of employee selection procedures

that is consistent with applicable legal standards.

Setting out validation standards for employee selection procedures generally accepted by
the psychological profession.

The Guidelines do not require a validation of the selection device unless evidence of adverse
impact exists. It is important to note also that compliance with the Guidelines does not
remove the affirmative action obligations for assessment users, including federal contractors
and subcontractors.

The Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides that an employer “shall not conduct
a medical examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant
is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.”
(42 USC Sec. 12112(d)(2)(A); see also 29 CFR Sec. 1630.13.) Inquiries into a person’s
disabilities are prohibited at the pre-offer employment stage, except in a very narrowly
defined situation when the applicant has voluntarily disclosed a medical condition requiring
accommodation. The ADA protects disabilities, not a characteristic that an employer may
consider to be a personal flaw or undesirable aspect of an applicant’s personality. The ADA
does not prohibit inquiries into such personality attributes as propensity for honesty, ability
to get along with others, organizational skills or management skills, to cite a few examples.
No question or series of questions designed to elicit information about a person’s mental
impairment (as defined by the ADA), or questions that would even tend to elicit such
information, should appear on an assessment product. Each HR•Assessments product has
been carefully reviewed under this standard, to avoid any conflict with ADA guidelines.

Recordkeeping Requirements
Various federal laws require employers to retain tests and test results for at least one year
from the date the test is administered or from the date of any personnel action relating
to the testing, whichever is later.

State and Local Laws

Due to the wide variety, complexity, and ever changing nature of state laws, it is impossible
to summarize each state’s requirements in this brief overview. If you are unfamiliar with the
state and local laws governing the use of screening devices applicable in your locale, consult
with a qualified labor law attorney or testing specialist who may provide competent guidance
on this topic.

Applicant Potential Test

6
Assessment Selection and Follow-Up Procedures

Selection
Generally, when selecting an assessment or any other selection tool, you should choose one
that has been designed specifically to measure the skills or traits necessary for the position
in question. It is recommended that a thorough job analysis be performed to determine
the connections between job functions and the attributes the assessment product is designed
to measure.

Monitoring
Monitor your selection process to ensure compliance with all applicable federal, state and
local laws, checking your selection process for evidence of adverse impact. This should be
conducted on a continual basis. HR•Assessments products include testing logs that can be
used to record each assessment taker’s scores, as well as other important data that may be
used to compute your own norms and adverse impact statistics.

Validation
Should your monitoring results indicate that adverse impact is occurring in the selection
procedures, you should determine in which component of the selection process it is
happening. If the use of a certain assessment product is found to be the cause, you will
need to conduct a validation study of the assessment. Qualified testing professionals may
be contacted to help in conducting a validity study. These professionals will be able to
help determine whether the assessment is the cause of the adverse impact and whether
the assessment is emphasizing a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. In some
instances, assessments that in some context may be considered discriminatory may be lawful
to use in others, so long as the assessment is centered on a bona fide occupational qualification.

Scoring
Cutoffs and suggested “pass” or “fail” scores are not provided with these assessments. Instead,
norms and, in some instances, average assessment scores for various levels of job performance
are provided. This information is provided for the elements the assessment is designed to
measure. This information is a result of the testing universe used in the validation studies
performed by HR•Assessments, and is for demonstrative purposes only. Assessment results
always should be interpreted, along with other information gathered through your selection
process, to ensure that you get a complete picture of the job candidate or employee. It is
recommended that you administer the assessment to your current employees so you may
develop your own company-specific norms for assessment performance. These norms then
can be used as benchmarks during your assessing and selection process.

Applicant Potential Test

7
Importance of Cognitive Ability
A tremendous amount of research in the testing literature has examined cognitive ability
(intelligence) and its effectiveness in predicting job performance and/or training success.
The results of the research are clear: Cognitive ability tests are valid across all jobs in predicting
job performance and training success.1

The HR•Assessments® Applicant Potential Test (A.P.T.) helps employers accurately

test an applicant’s level of general cognitive ability. More specifically, the test measures
an individual’s potential to be trained, to effectively and efficiently solve problems, to
communicate clearly and to comprehend complex relationships.

The A.P.T. provides you with the opportunity to objectively test the intellectual skills of
job applicants. By using the A.P.T. as part of the selection process, organizations can more
objectively and accurately screen out those individuals lacking the cognitive skills needed for
successful job performance and training success.

Description of the A.P.T.

The A.P.T. is a 12-minute test consisting of 50 problems. The problems are arranged from
least to most difficult. The different problems included in the test are:

­ ord Definitions
W
Unscrambling Letters to Form Specific Words
Recognizing Patterns of Numbers
Word Problems
Logic Statements
Relationships of Words or Objects
Basic Mathematical Concepts
Proofing of Numbers and Words
Proverb Definitions
Spatial Recognition
Shadow and Object Relationships

The 11 kinds of problems that make up the A.P.T. measure important aspects of cognitive
ability and have been proved effective in predicting an individual’s job performance and
potential to learn.

1 Hunter, J. E. & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-96.

Applicant Potential Test

8
Below are the test directions and two examples of the problems in the test.

DIRECTIONS
This is a test to see how rapidly and accurately you can solve different types of
problems. You are to place a checkmark in front of the appropriate response.
Please look over the sample problems below that have been answered for you.

1. RICH means the same as:

✓ wealthy ■ plain ■ reward ■ accomplished
■ destitute ■

The correct answer is “wealthy” because “wealthy” is the only word from among those
given whose meaning is the same as “rich.”

2. Look at the row of numbers below. What number should come next?
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 _____

■ 15 ✓ 16
■ ■ 17 ■ 18 ■ 19

The correct answer is “16” because “16” is the only number from among those given
that would continue the pattern set by the row of numbers (i.e., each number in the row
is increased by two as you move from left to right).

Do you have any questions?

This test contains 50 problems similar to those presented above. You will have 12
minutes to work on as many as you can. Problems must be worked without the aid
of a calculator. You may make any desired calculations in the space provided along the
center of the test. You should use a ballpoint pen when taking the test. If you make a
o
mistake, Do Not Erase your mark. Draw a circle around the ✓ like this: ✓. Then place
a checkmark in front of the desired response. You are not expected to complete all of
the problems in the time allowed, but try your best. Your score will be determined by
the number of problems you answer correctly. The problems become more difficult as
you go along. Therefore, it is not recommended that you skip around.

The examiner will not answer any questions once you have started.

Applicant Potential Test

9
Using Job Analysis to Justify Use of Assessments and Its Sections
(Legal Implications)
From a legal standpoint, if a test is to be used for selection or promotion purposes,
it is important that users of the assessment take the necessary action to establish a clear
connection between the job tasks and the occupational environments measured by the
assessment. This relevancy should exist to meet the principles outlined in the Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978) and other federal government
employment-related legislation, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the American with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The tasks that are crucial or essential to the job in question should be identified first.
Then, the occupational environment that matches the job in question can be determined.
This process should be carefully documented to justify the appropriateness of the assessment
administered in the employee selection process.

The following are examples that indicate the relationship between job tasks and the
occupational environments described in this manual:

Job Abilities

Understand and accurately follow written and verbal directions.

I nterpret information from different sources and use this information to make
appropriate decisions.

Adjust priorities based on logical assessment of work responsibilities and deadlines.

Use reasoning to effectively and efficiently solve complex work problems.

Applicant Potential Test

10
As a general guideline for compliance with federal discrimination and disability laws, test
users should not subject test takers to any adverse employment decision based on a test
result, unless the test result and other factors considered in the decision-making process
reveal that the person does not possess qualifications that are crucial or essential to the job
in question. To illustrate, if a test taker performs poorly on a test section designed to measure
inspection skills, and inspection skills are not crucial or essential to the position for which
the test taker is being considered, the test result should not serve as a basis for excluding the
test taker from the position. Similarly, if a test result indicates that a test taker is unable to
perform certain physical tasks that are not crucial or essential to the job position at issue,
the test taker should not be excluded from that position on the basis of the test result.1
Test users can avoid such a scenario altogether by carefully identifying the tasks that are
essential to the job position at issue, and administering only those tests or test sections that
are appropriate and relevant to the position’s requirements.

Test sections measuring proficiency in the English language also should be administered
in accordance with these principles. Thus, if spelling, grammar, vocabulary, or reading
comprehension skills are not essential to a job position, a test taker should not be subjected
to an adverse employment decision based on poor test results in those areas. Requiring
employees or applicants to be fluent in English may constitute national origin discrimination
in violation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if the requirement is not justified by business
necessity or directly related to job performance. There are some limited exceptions to
this rule for jobs involving dangerous work requiring a heightened understanding of
written or verbal safety instructions in English, or service positions that require significant
communication in English with the public. Test users should consult with an attorney before
subjecting any test taker to an adverse employment decision on the basis of English language
deficiencies.

Applicant Potential Test

11
Administration Instructions
Please read these instructions before administering the A.P.T.

If you are using the software version of this test, please refer to the software’s technical
manual for complete administration and scoring instructions.

1. B
 efore testing, you should be familiar with the test and its instructions.
Be prepared to answer any questions that may be asked.

2. T
 he test must be timed exactly (12 minutes). It is recommended that you use a stopwatch
to ensure the accuracy of the administration time.

3. The test should be administered in a quiet room, free from distractions and interruptions.

4. Provide each applicant with a ballpoint pen to ensure clear markings on the answer sheets.

5. D
 istribute the test and have the applicant complete the front cover (e.g., name, Social
Security number and date).

6. Tell the applicant to read the test instructions on the front cover.

7. A
 fter the applicant has read the test directions, ask, “Are there any questions?” If there
are no questions state, “Remember, there is a 12-minute time limit. You are not expected to
complete all of the problems, but try to work as quickly as possible. Your score will be
determined by the number of problems you answer correctly. Are there any questions?”

Test users who are subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 may be
required to provide accommodations to disabled test takers who need assistance during
the testing process. This may include, for example, relaxing the time limitations of
timed tests, offering visual or audio assistance, or providing special lighting or seating
arrangements. Test users who are uncertain of their obligations under the Americans
with Disabilities Act should consult an attorney if an accommodation is requested in the
testing process.

8. If there are no questions, instruct the applicant to “Turn the page and begin.”

9. A
 ccurately time the applicant. Make sure the applicant is given only the amount of time
specified for the test (12 minutes).

10.When the 12 minutes have expired, instruct the applicant to: “Stop; put your pen down.”

Applicant Potential Test

12
Scoring Instructions
1. O
 pen the assessment and tear off the perforated tab on the right side of the test.
Carefully separate the test cover from the answer key.

2. T
 he applicant’s answers should appear as checkmarks on the carbonless copy. An answer
is correct when the check appears inside the answer box. If an applicant checks off two
answers for the same question, this should be counted as incorrect. If an answer choice
o
is marked with a ✓, this indicates a mistake made by the applicant and should not be
counted as correct or incorrect.

3. A
 dd the number of correct responses and write this number in the space provided on the
front cover of the assessment. This is the applicant’s test score.

Applicant Potential Test

13
Interpretation and Use of Scores
Use the test score to evaluate the applicant. A low test score indicates that there is a strong
probability the applicant possesses limited cognitive ability. A high test score indicates that
there is a strong probability the applicant possesses a high level of cognitive ability.

For example, a score of 1 indicates the applicant probably possesses limited potential to be
trained, little ability to effectively and efficiently solve problems, has problems communicating
clearly and has trouble comprehending complex relationships. Conversely, a score of 35 on
the same test indicates the applicant probably possesses a very high level of these abilities.

Norms
When interpreting test scores, norms provide a point of reference regarding the relative test
performance of each applicant. Norms are the average scores or distribution of scores obtained
from a study sample. These score “patterns” can be compared to your own applicant’s test
score to help define his or her test performance.

Tables 1 and 2 on the following pages contain norms obtained from applicants who have
taken the A.P.T. Table 1 consists of two columns of numbers. The first column is the raw test
score. The second column is the percentile rank of that particular score or score range. The
percentile rank is the percentage of applicants in the sample who obtained scores lower than
the corresponding raw test score. For example, an applicant obtaining a score of 26 on the
A.P.T. would have scored in the 83rd percentile. This means the applicant would have scored
higher than 83% of the applicants in the norm sample.

Table 2 provides score ranges and average test scores for various job categories. In addition,
an interpretation as to the various duties involved in these jobs is furnished.

Applicant Potential Test

14
 Table 1
Applicant Potential Scale
Corresponding
A.P.T. Score Percentile
49-50 100
37-48 99
35-36 98
33-34 97
32 96
31 95
30 93
29 92
28 89
27 86
26 83
25 80
24 77
23 72
22 67
21 61
20 58
19 51
18 45
17 40
16 35
15 30
14 26
13 21
12 18
11 15
10 11
9 8
8 5
7 4
6 3
5 2
1 to 4 1
Average Score 20
Standard Deviation 8.00
Number of Participants 788

Applicant Potential Test

15
 Table 2
A.P.T. Scores Ranges
and Average Test Scores by Job Category

A.P.T. Average
Sample Jobs Score A.P.T. Interpretation
Range Score
Data entry, credit and collections, 13-25 19 Can perform routine assignments
assembly, print production, with simple instructions; can perform
shipping and receiving clerk. multiple tasks with proper training;
can perform basic computations.

Secretaries, administrative 15-27 21 Can perform basic office and

assistants, bookkeepers, payroll, clerical duties and responsibilities;
computer operators, first line can perform more advanced
supervisors, customer service, mathematical calculations; can use
telemarketing, sales positions. work experience to accomplish tasks;
can recognize when problems exist;
can train others on basic concepts
of the job.

Executives, managers, staff 20-30+ 25 Can make logical and valid decisions
professionals, computer without much input from others;
programmers, engineers, can work well autonomously;
upper-level supervisors. can obtain, decipher, and analyze
information quickly and efficiently;
can take information and draw
inferences and make casual
conclusions; can recognize when
problems exist and can create
solutions to these problems.

Applicant Potential Test

16
You can use the information in Tables 1 and 2 as a guide to selecting the best job
candidate; however, we strongly recommend that you collect and validate your own test data.
The applicant/employee pool in your organization may differ from the study sample presented
in this manual. Factors such as geographic location, business category and job responsibilities
may have a significant effect on test scores.

One way to develop your own norms and benchmarks is to administer the A.P.T. to your
employees. This will allow you to compare the scores of your top performers with those
of your less productive employees. The information then can serve as a guide during your
applicant evaluation process.

In addition, if you can establish and document that, in general, high scorers on the test are
also your better performing employees, this can serve as an initial step in establishing the
validity of the A.P.T. within your organization.

If you do administer the A.P.T. to your employees for establishing company-specific norms,
make sure your employees understand that the results of your study will be used for norm
development only and that their employment status will in no way be affected by their
test scores.

The EEOC and the Uniform Guidelines of Employee Selection Procedures recommend
that the job analyses be performed in conjunction with validation studies to determine the
job-relatedness of each test and other selection tools used throughout the hiring process.
It is the employer’s responsibility to periodically monitor its employment-screening process
to ensure that it is fair and valid.

Each packet of the A.P.T. includes a testing log you can use to record each applicant’s/
employee’s test scores, as well as other important applicant/employee data that may be used
to compute your own test norms.

Applicant Potential Test

17
Discussing Results of the A.P.T.
Your company should develop a procedure for telling the applicant what the next step in
the hiring process is, regardless of his/her score on the A.P.T. or any other assessment tool.
Emphasize that the A.P.T. is only one of the criteria used to determine whether the applicant
is a good match for the position. Remind the applicant that there are many people applying
for the same position, and that each applicant will be considered based on how all of his/her
qualifications and experience match the position’s requirements.

Some interviewers may be tempted to look for a quick or easy reason to tell the applicant why
he/she was not selected. “Blaming” a test may seem like a plausible reason, but it is no comfort
to the rejected applicant and should not occur. The fact is, the reason to hire or not hire should
never be based solely on any single assessment score. It is the interviewer’s responsibility to
review all of the information gathered from the various tools used during the hiring process –
such as the job application, the interview, reference checks and other tests – to form the
decision on the applicant’s appropriateness for the position.

The issue is and should always be whether there is an appropriate job-fit between job and
applicant. Using the A.P.T. is only a part of the information you need to make a decision.
The other important part is knowing what else is required and desired in the employee filling
the position, and effectively using all the sources available to you to make the best decision.
This will ensure an effective selection process that offers a more comprehensive view of the
applicant and results in hiring the best for your organization.

The employer assumes full responsibility for the proper use of the A.P.T. as mentioned in
this manual. This includes establishing its job-relatedness to the position in question. If you
have any questions about the proper use of employment tests, contact HR•Assessments or an
employment testing specialist.

Applicant Potential Test

18
Validity and Reliability
To be effective, selection procedures need to be valid and reliable. Extensive research has
been conducted to determine the validity and reliability of the A.P.T. This research is
described below.

Validity Study #1
The research method used in this first study is referred to as Concurrent Validation
Methodology. This validation method complies with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee
Selection Procedures. Basically, the approach requires that the test be administered to existing
employees and, concurrently, performance data be collected. The relationship between test
scores and performance ratings is then examined to determine the test’s ability to predict
performance. If a test is valid, and positively correlated with performance, you would expect
that, in general, those individuals scoring highly on the test would receive high performance
ratings while those obtaining lower scores would receive poor performance ratings.

The A.P.T. was administered to 95 employees of an organization in the southeastern

United States. Their job classifications and the number of employees associated with each
were as follows: 22 warehouse personnel (e.g., shipping and receiving clerks, assembly
personnel, print/production personnel), 43 sales/service personnel (e.g., customer service,
sales, telemarketing and credit and collections representatives) and 30 office staff
(e.g., administrative assistants, data entry clerks, payroll clerks, secretaries, bookkeepers).
Supervisors were asked to rate the study participants on a wide range of job performance
dimensions. A correlation analysis was then conducted to determine the relationship
between the A.P.T. scores and the supervisor’s ratings of job performance.

The results of this study indicate that there is a high degree of relationship between the
A.P.T. scores and a wide range of job performance ratings across the three job classifications
examined. That is, the higher the test score, the more likely the employee would be rated
higher by his/her supervisor.

Tables 3 to 5 below present the significant validity coefficients obtained for the various job
dimensions examined. The results are presented for the three job classifications included in
the analysis. These findings are consistent with previous studies examining the validity of
ability tests across jobs.
Table 3
Correlation Between A.P.T. Scores and Performance Ratings
for Warehouse Personnel
Validity Significance
Job Dimension N
Coefficient Level
Communication Skills .54 p<.01 21
Reading Skills .56 p<.01 22
Interpersonal Skills .46 p<.02 22
Clerical Skills .57 p<.01 18
Math Skills .60 p<.01 21
Initiative .58 p<.01 22
Ability to Handle Multiple Tasks .40 p<.04 22
Helping Behavior .55 p<.01 22
Team Skills .36 p<.05 22
Note: N equals the number of participants in the analysis.

Applicant Potential Test

19
 Table 4
Correlation Between A.P.T. Scores and Performance Ratings
for Sales/Service Personnel
Validity Significance
Job Dimension N
Coefficient Level
Reading Skills .31 p<.02 43
Writing Skills .30 p<.05 31
Note: N equals the number of participants in the analysis.

Table 5
Correlation Between A.P.T. Scores and Performance Ratings
for Office Staff
Validity Significance

Job Dimension Coefficient Level N
Ability to Follow Directions .45 p<.01 30
Clerical Skills .32 p<.05 30
Organizational Skills .34 p<.04 30
Note: N equals the number of participants in the analysis.

Table 6 shows the mean validity coefficients obtained from years of researching cognitive
ability and their relationship with job performance for various jobs.

Table 6
Average Validity Coefficients for Cognitive Ability
and Job Performance
Mean Validity
Job Families Cognitive ability Tests
Salesperson .61
Clerk .54
Manager .53
Service Worker .48
Trades and Crafts Worker .46
Protective Professions Worker .42
Elementary Industrial Worker .37
Vehicle Operator .28
Sales Clerk .27
Source: Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance.
Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-96.

Applicant Potential Test

20
Validity Study #2

Years of research have provided evidence that general cognitive ability is the single best predictor
of future training success. To demonstrate the A.P.T.’s proficiency to predict the ability to be
trained, a predictive validation research study was conducted.

Study participants were 33 students enrolled in a graduate-level, business psychology course

at a large university. A majority of the students were employed full-time and held jobs
such as secretary, bank teller, manager, supervisor, computer programmer and correctional
officer. Each student took the A.P.T. during the first three weeks of the class. At the end of
the semester, students’ scores on the test were correlated with their final grades in the course.
To avoid possible bias in grade distribution, scores on the A.P.T. were not evaluated until final
grades were assigned. The results of the correlation analysis are presented in Table 7.

Table 7
Correlation Between A.P.T. Scores
and Final School Course Grades
Validity Significance

Criteria Coefficient Level N

School Course Grades .46 p<.007 33

Note: N equals the number of participants in the analysis.

This analysis indicates that the higher the individual’s test score, the higher the final grade
received. In other words, the higher one scored on the A.P.T., the better that person was able
to grasp the course material.

Validity Study #3
An alternate way of testing the psychometric soundness and utility of a screening instrument
is to show that it has construct-validity. Construct-validity is demonstrated when the test
shows that it measures the traits, concepts or dimensions that it claims to measure. Such a
validation is accepted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as evidence that
the test has been properly developed. The following paragraph describes a construct-validity
study undertaken to further demonstrate the validity of the A.P.T.

Sixty-nine people employed in a wide array of job categories participated in the study.
Some of the job categories represented were secretarial and clerical, data entry, programmer,
engineer, customer service, sales, public service and management. Each participant took
both the A.P.T. and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R). The WAIS-R
is an intelligence test that takes approximately one and a half hours to complete and measures
a person’s I.Q. This test has undergone years of validation demonstrating its ability to
measure intelligence levels. A correlation analysis was performed between the A.P.T. scores
and the WAIS-R to determine the degree to which the two tests were related. Results of this
study indicate that scores on the A.P.T. were strongly associated with scores on the WAIS-R
(r=.79, p<.0001), meaning the A.P.T. is an accurate predictor of intelligence. The bar graph
on the next page presents average A.P.T. scores for I.Q. score ranges.

Applicant Potential Test

21
 Average A.P.T. Score by I.Q.

A.P.T. Score 30

25 27

20

15
15
10

9
5

Low I.Q. Average I.Q. High I.Q.

(84 or less) (95-105) (115+)
I.Q. Score

The results of the validity studies described above document that the A.P.T. predicts future
job performance, training success, and is an accurate measure of an individual’s intelligence
level. Table 8 on the following page summarizes these findings.

Table 8
Correlation Between A.P.T. and Job Performance,
Training Success and I.Q.
Criteria Validity Coefficient
Job Performance (Average Validity) .45
Training Success .46
I.Q. .79

When compared to other methods of predicting job performance, cognitive ability tests
have consistently been found to be the best. Table 9 presents data accumulated from years
of research comparing the mean validities of a wide variety of selection methods. The
research demonstrates that cognitive ability is by far the most valid tool for predicting
future job performance.

Applicant Potential Test

22
 Table 9
Comparison of Various Employment-Screening Methods
Mean Standard Number of Number of

Predictor Validity Deviation Correlations Subjects
Ability Composite
(cognitive ability) .53 .15 425 32,124
Job Tryout .44 — 20 —
Biographical Inventory .37 .10 12 4,429
Reference Check .26 .09 10 5,389
Experience .18 — 425 32,124
Interview .14 .05 10 2,694
Training & Experience
Ratings .13 — 65 —
Academic Achievement .11 .00 11 1,089
Education .10 — 425 32,124
Interest .10 — 3 1,789
Age .01 — 425 32,124
Source: Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance.
Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-96.

Reliability
In addition to validity research, studies have been conducted to assess the consistency
(or reliability) of the A.P.T. That is, how likely is an applicant’s assessment score to remain
consistent from one test administration to another? The more reliable the test, the less likely
it is that the scores will differ significantly from one administration to the next. The A.P.T.
was administered to 98 people employed in a wide variety of jobs (e.g., managers, customer
service representatives, warehouse personnel, and sales representatives). Four weeks later,
the same employees were tested again. This test/retest reliability analysis indicates that there
is a significant correlation between the first and second administration test scores (r=.72,
p<.001). The findings offer strong evidence that the A.P.T. is a reliable instrument that is
consistent over time.

Revised A.P.T.
The A.P.T. was introduced in 1992 under the name Personnel Ability Test (P.A.T.). In an
effort to update the P.A.T. to ensure you have a selection tool that truly reflects today’s most
critical, job-related issues, every question on the original test was recently reexamined and
fine-tuned. This updated, more timely assessment tool (A.P.T.) was correlated to the original
P.A.T. to ensure both tests measure the same construct. The correlation between the two tests
was .78, suggesting the A.P.T. continues to assess the same construct measured by the P.A.T.
(i.e., cognitive ability). Moreover, norms of both tests were equivalent. Therefore, the norms
tables in the previous P.A.T. manuals, as well as the present manual, can be used for both the
original P.A.T. and the new, updated A.P.T.

To order the Applicant Potential Test or any other HR•Assessments® product, or if you have
any questions, call toll-free 800-264-0074 or visit our website at www.NewHireTesting.com.

Applicant Potential Test

23