Graduate recruitment – Is cognitive testing delivering on its promise?
Cognitive testing
  • Is cognitive testing failing to identify the best graduates for your business?
  • Are you concerned about the risk of cheating?
  • Are you having to adjust your benchmarks to reach your annual graduate intake?

Many organisations use online cognitive or aptitude tests for the initial screening of candidates in high volume graduate recruitment programs.  This makes good sense given the large body of research that consistently demonstrates the relationship between cognitive ability and job performance.  But is cognitive testing delivering on its promise?  Some employers say that the brightest graduates are not necessarily their best employees.

Why test if the brightest graduates are not the best employees?

There is a simple answer to this question.  Job performance requires more than cognitive ability.  Cognitive ability accounts for about 25% of the difference between your high and lower performers.  It may not sound much but, when converted to dollar savings and compared with other selection methods such as interviews and assessment centres, cognitive testing stacks up very well – and is much less labour intensive.  The research is clear:  cognitive tests are a very cost effective component of most employee selection programs. 

But what about the other 75% of job performance that can’t be explained by cognitive ability?  This is where the assessment of personality, motivation and other personal attributes becomes important.  Job performance is a complex phenomenon that cannot be measured by looking at the person only.  We need to also consider the demands of the job and job-person fit.  This requires a highly structured assessment process in which the attributes measured in the candidate are closely aligned with those that will be required in the job.  Cognitive ability is a critical factor for success, but not the only one.

Is cheating a problem? 

Cheating is always a potential risk when cognitive tests are administered unsupervised.  That risk may be higher when used as a screening tool in high volume campaigns where applicants may consider asking a peer to complete the test for them.  But the research on faking and cheating suggests it may not be the big problem we expect it to be.  Some useful ways of reducing the likelihood of this happening include:

  • Warning candidates that their results may be verified by re-testing
  • Having candidates confirm that their results are their own
  • Requiring candidates to make a video recording of their test taking.

Where to set cut-off scores 

Setting a high cut-off score is very tempting for graduate employers.  They often want only the brightest – those who are most likely to learn quickly, contribute great ideas, think on their feet, and manage complexity.  But there is no golden rule for where the bar should be set.  It will depend on the norm group against which candidates are compared.  An appropriate benchmark will also depend on the size of the applicant pool and the timing of the recruitment program (other employers may have already made offers to high scorers).  The cognitive test results also need to be considered alongside other information about applicants collected in interviews, assessment centres, job applications, etc.

Low scores do not mean the graduate cannot do the job. 

The actual meaning of high and low scores on cognitive tests is often mis-interpreted.  Low scores do not mean that the person cannot do the job.  Most graduates will, of course, be able to do the job if they have had appropriate skills training.  As much as we can say is that those that return lower scores are less likely to perform as effectively as those who return higher scores.  Cognitive tests help to minimise the risk of a mis-hire – a costly mistake for organisations.  They do not tell us if someone can or cannot do a job.

So, where does that leave us?

  • Based on the research evidence, cognitive tests are effective predictors of job performance and are worthy of a place in most graduate recruitment programs.
  • Don’t expect cognitive ability tests to predict everything.  Job performance is multi-faceted.  A multi-faceted approach to recruitment and selection is required. 
  • Cheating is a risk when testing is conducted unsupervised, but it can be managed and may not be the problem we think it is. 
  • Cognitive testing is a risk management tool.  While we aim for good person-job fit by testing and profiling job candidates, it is the cost of making the wrong decision that organisations want to avoid. 

Well-structured recruitment processes based on valid selection tools and methods are the first step to getting it right.  Let’s not overlook those, such as cognitive tests, that we know can add value.