Discussion: View Thread

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

Francois ... here is a great definition from the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs defining many nuances of what is our traditional understanding of the concept of Aptitudes. https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4

I recall a statement from the late, great Gale Gibson - Founder of Vertek, Inc. and its various software products which are now a part of SkillTRAN. His simple phrase was "Skills are aptitudes realized." I love that simple statement because it goes to the heart of it ... it is really difficult to master any kind of skill, however acquired, if you don't have the "knack" for it ... the potential (aptitude) to learn it. 

We are all created equal before a far greater authority. But we each have been gifted differently.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

Francois ... here is a great definition from the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs defining many nuances of what is our traditional understanding of the concept of Aptitudes. https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4

I recall a statement from the late, great Gale Gibson - Founder of Vertek, Inc. and its various software products which are now a part of SkillTRAN. His simple phrase was "Skills are aptitudes realized." I love that simple statement because it goes to the heart of it ... it is really difficult to master any kind of skill, however acquired, if you don't have the "knack" for it ... the potential (aptitude) to learn it. 

We are all created equal before a far greater authority. But we each have been gifted differently.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

Francois ... here is a great definition from the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs defining many nuances of what is our traditional understanding of the concept of Aptitudes. https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4

I recall a statement from the late, great Gale Gibson - Founder of Vertek, Inc. and its various software products which are now a part of SkillTRAN. His simple phrase was "Skills are aptitudes realized." I love that simple statement because it goes to the heart of it ... it is really difficult to master any kind of skill, however acquired, if you don't have the "knack" for it ... the potential (aptitude) to learn it. 

We are all created equal before a far greater authority. But we each have been gifted differently.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

Thank you. Your comments go along my thinking that training would likely have little impact on aptitude test scores, except perhaps at lower aptitude levels, as previously mentioned. I hope to get some feedback from EDITS.

Francois ... here is a great definition from the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs defining many nuances of what is our traditional understanding of the concept of Aptitudes. https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4

I recall a statement from the late, great Gale Gibson - Founder of Vertek, Inc. and its various software products which are now a part of SkillTRAN. His simple phrase was "Skills are aptitudes realized." I love that simple statement because it goes to the heart of it ... it is really difficult to master any kind of skill, however acquired, if you don't have the "knack" for it ... the potential (aptitude) to learn it. 

We are all created equal before a far greater authority. But we each have been gifted differently.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

Bad decision to abandon GATB. But in reference to the question: If G is essentially similar to IQ (and IQ is essentially, as some say, little more than the ability to do well in school) and G is made up of V, N and S,  and all of these are very obviously developed and practiced and burnished in school, work OJT (training), I do not think it is as simple as you make it out to be. 

Thank you. Your comments go along my thinking that training would likely have little impact on aptitude test scores, except perhaps at lower aptitude levels, as previously mentioned. I hope to get some feedback from EDITS.

Francois ... here is a great definition from the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs defining many nuances of what is our traditional understanding of the concept of Aptitudes. https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4

I recall a statement from the late, great Gale Gibson - Founder of Vertek, Inc. and its various software products which are now a part of SkillTRAN. His simple phrase was "Skills are aptitudes realized." I love that simple statement because it goes to the heart of it ... it is really difficult to master any kind of skill, however acquired, if you don't have the "knack" for it ... the potential (aptitude) to learn it. 

We are all created equal before a far greater authority. But we each have been gifted differently.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

I have always thought the following:

Aptitude as the potential to learn/perform
GED-RML as a measure of academic training
SVP as the demonstration of proficiency through learning and/or work experience.

Bad decision to abandon GATB. But in reference to the question: If G is essentially similar to IQ (and IQ is essentially, as some say, little more than the ability to do well in school) and G is made up of V, N and S,  and all of these are very obviously developed and practiced and burnished in school, work OJT (training), I do not think it is as simple as you make it out to be. 

Thank you. Your comments go along my thinking that training would likely have little impact on aptitude test scores, except perhaps at lower aptitude levels, as previously mentioned. I hope to get some feedback from EDITS.

Francois ... here is a great definition from the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs defining many nuances of what is our traditional understanding of the concept of Aptitudes. https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4

I recall a statement from the late, great Gale Gibson - Founder of Vertek, Inc. and its various software products which are now a part of SkillTRAN. His simple phrase was "Skills are aptitudes realized." I love that simple statement because it goes to the heart of it ... it is really difficult to master any kind of skill, however acquired, if you don't have the "knack" for it ... the potential (aptitude) to learn it. 

We are all created equal before a far greater authority. But we each have been gifted differently.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

I have always thought the following:

Aptitude as the potential to learn/perform
GED-RML as a measure of academic training
SVP as the demonstration of proficiency through learning and/or work experience.

Bad decision to abandon GATB. But in reference to the question: If G is essentially similar to IQ (and IQ is essentially, as some say, little more than the ability to do well in school) and G is made up of V, N and S,  and all of these are very obviously developed and practiced and burnished in school, work OJT (training), I do not think it is as simple as you make it out to be. 

Thank you. Your comments go along my thinking that training would likely have little impact on aptitude test scores, except perhaps at lower aptitude levels, as previously mentioned. I hope to get some feedback from EDITS.

Francois ... here is a great definition from the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs defining many nuances of what is our traditional understanding of the concept of Aptitudes. https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4

I recall a statement from the late, great Gale Gibson - Founder of Vertek, Inc. and its various software products which are now a part of SkillTRAN. His simple phrase was "Skills are aptitudes realized." I love that simple statement because it goes to the heart of it ... it is really difficult to master any kind of skill, however acquired, if you don't have the "knack" for it ... the potential (aptitude) to learn it. 

We are all created equal before a far greater authority. But we each have been gifted differently.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

Assuming Joe is a younger individual, implied by 9th grade education and aptitude testing back in 2018. Failed completion of high school in the typical age range implies any of a wide variety of issues likely occurring during that time that may have suppressed performance on the aptitude testing as well as completion of HS in traditional timing.

Aptitudes and interests generally stabilize by the mid-twenties. Subsequent completion of high school via GED and  interest and engagement in community college training are terrific accomplishments for Joe.

Subsequent testing may well reveal an upward bump in G, V, N scores partly from additional education but likely due to better attention span and motivation at an older age. If achievement testing would be done, would certainly expect solid gains here as well.

I have always thought the following:

Aptitude as the potential to learn/perform
GED-RML as a measure of academic training
SVP as the demonstration of proficiency through learning and/or work experience.

Bad decision to abandon GATB. But in reference to the question: If G is essentially similar to IQ (and IQ is essentially, as some say, little more than the ability to do well in school) and G is made up of V, N and S,  and all of these are very obviously developed and practiced and burnished in school, work OJT (training), I do not think it is as simple as you make it out to be. 

Thank you. Your comments go along my thinking that training would likely have little impact on aptitude test scores, except perhaps at lower aptitude levels, as previously mentioned. I hope to get some feedback from EDITS.

Francois ... here is a great definition from the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs defining many nuances of what is our traditional understanding of the concept of Aptitudes. https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4

I recall a statement from the late, great Gale Gibson - Founder of Vertek, Inc. and its various software products which are now a part of SkillTRAN. His simple phrase was "Skills are aptitudes realized." I love that simple statement because it goes to the heart of it ... it is really difficult to master any kind of skill, however acquired, if you don't have the "knack" for it ... the potential (aptitude) to learn it. 

We are all created equal before a far greater authority. But we each have been gifted differently.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

Assuming Joe is a younger individual, implied by 9th grade education and aptitude testing back in 2018. Failed completion of high school in the typical age range implies any of a wide variety of issues likely occurring during that time that may have suppressed performance on the aptitude testing as well as completion of HS in traditional timing.

Aptitudes and interests generally stabilize by the mid-twenties. Subsequent completion of high school via GED and  interest and engagement in community college training are terrific accomplishments for Joe.

Subsequent testing may well reveal an upward bump in G, V, N scores partly from additional education but likely due to better attention span and motivation at an older age. If achievement testing would be done, would certainly expect solid gains here as well.

I have always thought the following:

Aptitude as the potential to learn/perform
GED-RML as a measure of academic training
SVP as the demonstration of proficiency through learning and/or work experience.

Bad decision to abandon GATB. But in reference to the question: If G is essentially similar to IQ (and IQ is essentially, as some say, little more than the ability to do well in school) and G is made up of V, N and S,  and all of these are very obviously developed and practiced and burnished in school, work OJT (training), I do not think it is as simple as you make it out to be. 

Thank you. Your comments go along my thinking that training would likely have little impact on aptitude test scores, except perhaps at lower aptitude levels, as previously mentioned. I hope to get some feedback from EDITS.

Francois ... here is a great definition from the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs defining many nuances of what is our traditional understanding of the concept of Aptitudes. https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4

I recall a statement from the late, great Gale Gibson - Founder of Vertek, Inc. and its various software products which are now a part of SkillTRAN. His simple phrase was "Skills are aptitudes realized." I love that simple statement because it goes to the heart of it ... it is really difficult to master any kind of skill, however acquired, if you don't have the "knack" for it ... the potential (aptitude) to learn it. 

We are all created equal before a far greater authority. But we each have been gifted differently.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

No implication Joe was that young. He had simply dropped out of school following 9th grade. Very common scenario in WC and other injury cases with blue collar workers. Let's say he was 45-ish at time he took first aptitude test. With all other events same and with his further education, what, would none of that much matter and with another go round of aptitude testing half a dozen years later would GVN merely mirror those before?

Assuming Joe is a younger individual, implied by 9th grade education and aptitude testing back in 2018. Failed completion of high school in the typical age range implies any of a wide variety of issues likely occurring during that time that may have suppressed performance on the aptitude testing as well as completion of HS in traditional timing.

Aptitudes and interests generally stabilize by the mid-twenties. Subsequent completion of high school via GED and  interest and engagement in community college training are terrific accomplishments for Joe.

Subsequent testing may well reveal an upward bump in G, V, N scores partly from additional education but likely due to better attention span and motivation at an older age. If achievement testing would be done, would certainly expect solid gains here as well.

I have always thought the following:

Aptitude as the potential to learn/perform
GED-RML as a measure of academic training
SVP as the demonstration of proficiency through learning and/or work experience.

Bad decision to abandon GATB. But in reference to the question: If G is essentially similar to IQ (and IQ is essentially, as some say, little more than the ability to do well in school) and G is made up of V, N and S,  and all of these are very obviously developed and practiced and burnished in school, work OJT (training), I do not think it is as simple as you make it out to be. 

Thank you. Your comments go along my thinking that training would likely have little impact on aptitude test scores, except perhaps at lower aptitude levels, as previously mentioned. I hope to get some feedback from EDITS.

Francois ... here is a great definition from the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs defining many nuances of what is our traditional understanding of the concept of Aptitudes. https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4

I recall a statement from the late, great Gale Gibson - Founder of Vertek, Inc. and its various software products which are now a part of SkillTRAN. His simple phrase was "Skills are aptitudes realized." I love that simple statement because it goes to the heart of it ... it is really difficult to master any kind of skill, however acquired, if you don't have the "knack" for it ... the potential (aptitude) to learn it. 

We are all created equal before a far greater authority. But we each have been gifted differently.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

Mid-life testing I would expect more stability in aptitudes G V N S P. Maybe slight decline in Q and motor skills K F M E. 

No implication Joe was that young. He had simply dropped out of school following 9th grade. Very common scenario in WC and other injury cases with blue collar workers. Let's say he was 45-ish at time he took first aptitude test. With all other events same and with his further education, what, would none of that much matter and with another go round of aptitude testing half a dozen years later would GVN merely mirror those before?

Assuming Joe is a younger individual, implied by 9th grade education and aptitude testing back in 2018. Failed completion of high school in the typical age range implies any of a wide variety of issues likely occurring during that time that may have suppressed performance on the aptitude testing as well as completion of HS in traditional timing.

Aptitudes and interests generally stabilize by the mid-twenties. Subsequent completion of high school via GED and  interest and engagement in community college training are terrific accomplishments for Joe.

Subsequent testing may well reveal an upward bump in G, V, N scores partly from additional education but likely due to better attention span and motivation at an older age. If achievement testing would be done, would certainly expect solid gains here as well.

I have always thought the following:

Aptitude as the potential to learn/perform
GED-RML as a measure of academic training
SVP as the demonstration of proficiency through learning and/or work experience.

Bad decision to abandon GATB. But in reference to the question: If G is essentially similar to IQ (and IQ is essentially, as some say, little more than the ability to do well in school) and G is made up of V, N and S,  and all of these are very obviously developed and practiced and burnished in school, work OJT (training), I do not think it is as simple as you make it out to be. 

Thank you. Your comments go along my thinking that training would likely have little impact on aptitude test scores, except perhaps at lower aptitude levels, as previously mentioned. I hope to get some feedback from EDITS.

Francois ... here is a great definition from the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs defining many nuances of what is our traditional understanding of the concept of Aptitudes. https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4

I recall a statement from the late, great Gale Gibson - Founder of Vertek, Inc. and its various software products which are now a part of SkillTRAN. His simple phrase was "Skills are aptitudes realized." I love that simple statement because it goes to the heart of it ... it is really difficult to master any kind of skill, however acquired, if you don't have the "knack" for it ... the potential (aptitude) to learn it. 

We are all created equal before a far greater authority. But we each have been gifted differently.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

Mid-life testing I would expect more stability in aptitudes G V N S P. Maybe slight decline in Q and motor skills K F M E. 

No implication Joe was that young. He had simply dropped out of school following 9th grade. Very common scenario in WC and other injury cases with blue collar workers. Let's say he was 45-ish at time he took first aptitude test. With all other events same and with his further education, what, would none of that much matter and with another go round of aptitude testing half a dozen years later would GVN merely mirror those before?

Assuming Joe is a younger individual, implied by 9th grade education and aptitude testing back in 2018. Failed completion of high school in the typical age range implies any of a wide variety of issues likely occurring during that time that may have suppressed performance on the aptitude testing as well as completion of HS in traditional timing.

Aptitudes and interests generally stabilize by the mid-twenties. Subsequent completion of high school via GED and  interest and engagement in community college training are terrific accomplishments for Joe.

Subsequent testing may well reveal an upward bump in G, V, N scores partly from additional education but likely due to better attention span and motivation at an older age. If achievement testing would be done, would certainly expect solid gains here as well.

I have always thought the following:

Aptitude as the potential to learn/perform
GED-RML as a measure of academic training
SVP as the demonstration of proficiency through learning and/or work experience.

Bad decision to abandon GATB. But in reference to the question: If G is essentially similar to IQ (and IQ is essentially, as some say, little more than the ability to do well in school) and G is made up of V, N and S,  and all of these are very obviously developed and practiced and burnished in school, work OJT (training), I do not think it is as simple as you make it out to be. 

Thank you. Your comments go along my thinking that training would likely have little impact on aptitude test scores, except perhaps at lower aptitude levels, as previously mentioned. I hope to get some feedback from EDITS.

Francois ... here is a great definition from the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs defining many nuances of what is our traditional understanding of the concept of Aptitudes. https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4

I recall a statement from the late, great Gale Gibson - Founder of Vertek, Inc. and its various software products which are now a part of SkillTRAN. His simple phrase was "Skills are aptitudes realized." I love that simple statement because it goes to the heart of it ... it is really difficult to master any kind of skill, however acquired, if you don't have the "knack" for it ... the potential (aptitude) to learn it. 

We are all created equal before a far greater authority. But we each have been gifted differently.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.

Assuming substantial additional training/education, I too would expect stability in aptitudes S P. and as you say, maybe slight decline in Q and motor skills K F M, but probably not GVN. Q is iffy. I would expect much higher GVN if academic deficits were addressed over time. V and N are markedly impacted by academics. If Joe hated school, never could read or do math too well and dropped out to work construction, his GVN quite likely would not have been so hot at 20 or 30, or 40. We often don't really know but sometimes see it in ASVAB scores. But if he gets additional training (in what V and N are all about) such training improves those aptitude scores

Mid-life testing I would expect more stability in aptitudes G V N S P. Maybe slight decline in Q and motor skills K F M E. 

No implication Joe was that young. He had simply dropped out of school following 9th grade. Very common scenario in WC and other injury cases with blue collar workers. Let's say he was 45-ish at time he took first aptitude test. With all other events same and with his further education, what, would none of that much matter and with another go round of aptitude testing half a dozen years later would GVN merely mirror those before?

Assuming Joe is a younger individual, implied by 9th grade education and aptitude testing back in 2018. Failed completion of high school in the typical age range implies any of a wide variety of issues likely occurring during that time that may have suppressed performance on the aptitude testing as well as completion of HS in traditional timing.

Aptitudes and interests generally stabilize by the mid-twenties. Subsequent completion of high school via GED and  interest and engagement in community college training are terrific accomplishments for Joe.

Subsequent testing may well reveal an upward bump in G, V, N scores partly from additional education but likely due to better attention span and motivation at an older age. If achievement testing would be done, would certainly expect solid gains here as well.

I have always thought the following:

Aptitude as the potential to learn/perform
GED-RML as a measure of academic training
SVP as the demonstration of proficiency through learning and/or work experience.

Bad decision to abandon GATB. But in reference to the question: If G is essentially similar to IQ (and IQ is essentially, as some say, little more than the ability to do well in school) and G is made up of V, N and S,  and all of these are very obviously developed and practiced and burnished in school, work OJT (training), I do not think it is as simple as you make it out to be. 

Thank you. Your comments go along my thinking that training would likely have little impact on aptitude test scores, except perhaps at lower aptitude levels, as previously mentioned. I hope to get some feedback from EDITS.

Francois ... here is a great definition from the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs defining many nuances of what is our traditional understanding of the concept of Aptitudes. https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4

I recall a statement from the late, great Gale Gibson - Founder of Vertek, Inc. and its various software products which are now a part of SkillTRAN. His simple phrase was "Skills are aptitudes realized." I love that simple statement because it goes to the heart of it ... it is really difficult to master any kind of skill, however acquired, if you don't have the "knack" for it ... the potential (aptitude) to learn it. 

We are all created equal before a far greater authority. But we each have been gifted differently.

Good afternoon,

I was recently asked by a colleague about guidelines for increasing aptitudes through training. They were informed that all aptitudes could be increased by one level with appropriate training and that aptitudes V, N, and S cannot increase above the G aptitude level. I am exploring this topic further and would appreciate your insights and any resources you might recommend.

My understanding is that aptitudes represent innate abilities and are generally stable over time, with minimal impact from training. However, I recognize that training and practice can improve performance, especially in specific areas like math or language. I suspect that such improvements may be more noticeable at lower levels of aptitude (e.g., from low to low average), while the impact might be negligible at higher levels (e.g., from high average to high).

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered any research or practical experiences that address this question?

Thank you.