Discussion: View Thread

Dear colleagues,

I recently came across a vocational report in which the evaluator stated that she includes in her recommendations occupations that are up to one aptitude level above the evaluee's test profile (i.e. occupations that require average general learning ability or verbal aptitudes are recommended where the evaluee tested at a low average level). I have always taken the approach, especially in a forensic setting, that if a person does not match the aptitude requirements, then the occupation is likely not suitable.

I would like to hear what you think about this and what is your rationale. Thank you in advance!

Dear colleagues,

I recently came across a vocational report in which the evaluator stated that she includes in her recommendations occupations that are up to one aptitude level above the evaluee's test profile (i.e. occupations that require average general learning ability or verbal aptitudes are recommended where the evaluee tested at a low average level). I have always taken the approach, especially in a forensic setting, that if a person does not match the aptitude requirements, then the occupation is likely not suitable.

I would like to hear what you think about this and what is your rationale. Thank you in advance!

Dear colleagues,

I recently came across a vocational report in which the evaluator stated that she includes in her recommendations occupations that are up to one aptitude level above the evaluee's test profile (i.e. occupations that require average general learning ability or verbal aptitudes are recommended where the evaluee tested at a low average level). I have always taken the approach, especially in a forensic setting, that if a person does not match the aptitude requirements, then the occupation is likely not suitable.

I would like to hear what you think about this and what is your rationale. Thank you in advance!

I have heard back from a few people about this issue and here is what I think; it is best not to disregard actual test scores unless there is a good reason to think they are not an accurate representation of someone's potential or capacity. For example, if a person's test results were lower than what their work or education history would suggest and no apparent reasons to explain the discrepancy (i.e. medical impairments* affecting attention or tolerance to complete tasks, obvious lack of effort), then I would fall back to the work/education history aptitude profile as a more accurate representation of that person's work potential. In such a case, I would still prefer using the work history profile than simply raising the aptitude test scores to include more job matches. 

*In the jurisdiction where I work, impairments are only compensable if there is medical evidence to support them.

Dear colleagues,

I recently came across a vocational report in which the evaluator stated that she includes in her recommendations occupations that are up to one aptitude level above the evaluee's test profile (i.e. occupations that require average general learning ability or verbal aptitudes are recommended where the evaluee tested at a low average level). I have always taken the approach, especially in a forensic setting, that if a person does not match the aptitude requirements, then the occupation is likely not suitable.

I would like to hear what you think about this and what is your rationale. Thank you in advance!

I have heard back from a few people about this issue and here is what I think; it is best not to disregard actual test scores unless there is a good reason to think they are not an accurate representation of someone's potential or capacity. For example, if a person's test results were lower than what their work or education history would suggest and no apparent reasons to explain the discrepancy (i.e. medical impairments* affecting attention or tolerance to complete tasks, obvious lack of effort), then I would fall back to the work/education history aptitude profile as a more accurate representation of that person's work potential. In such a case, I would still prefer using the work history profile than simply raising the aptitude test scores to include more job matches.

*In the jurisdiction where I work, impairments are only compensable if there is medical evidence to support them.

Dear colleagues,

I recently came across a vocational report in which the evaluator stated that she includes in her recommendations occupations that are up to one aptitude level above the evaluee's test profile (i.e. occupations that require average general learning ability or verbal aptitudes are recommended where the evaluee tested at a low average level). I have always taken the approach, especially in a forensic setting, that if a person does not match the aptitude requirements, then the occupation is likely not suitable.

I would like to hear what you think about this and what is your rationale. Thank you in advance!

Hi Francois - <o:p></o:p>

Here is a link to Chapter 9 - Aptitudes, as described in the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs: https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4<o:p></o:p>

We have scanned the entire book, chapter by chapter, since it is out of print from the US Government. https://skilltran.com/index.php/support-area/documentation/1991rhaj<o:p></o:p>

Average - Value = 3 is defined as the middle 1/3 of the standard distribution across the working population. There is a bell shaped curve often depicted when associated with this range of values, but the curve is not part of the actual published document. So middle 1/3 is the middle 33% of the population, with about 16% less than the average and 16% above. So to interpret test scores, the middle range covers about 34% to 67% of the working population. Performance on tests reported in %ile values may be applicable, depending on the composition of the normative group on which the test was normed and its relationship to the general working population. <o:p></o:p>

Basic statistics aside, lower performance on a testing measure can be negatively influenced by a variety of factors, ranging from personal anxiety, genuine limitation in the tested aptitude, an "off" day, or whatever. When applied to the real world, limited aptitude can sometimes be offset in a learning environment by significant motivation by the individual to learn the subject matter. We admire people who "hit the books" hard to master a subject at hand ... or a training program, or academic degree. So utility of these values can be variable when applied to the n=1 ... when motivation/applied learning and ultimate performance may well exceed test result. <o:p></o:p>

Low average, in the context of the GATB performance should be viewed in the context of the 9 subtests administered. Low average is still within that middle third called "average". Bottom line, check the report to see if subtest values are reported and which values are in which ranges. Many people do well on some areas and bomb out on others. Each of us is gifted differently. Many experience test anxiety.<o:p></o:p>

Also, test scores from GATB do not align perfectly with the task statement examples and rating procedures followed by DOT job analysts. Note the last paragraph on page 9-2. In the DOT, an assignment of value 5 indicates that there is no need for this aptitude at all to perform a specific DOT occupation. This is reinforced by the fact that there are NO DOT occupations with a G value of 5. All occupations require at least SOME intelligence, so there are NO DOT OCCUPATIONS with value of 5 for Aptitude G - General Learning Ability. From our "Pocket Guide to the DOT" - https://skilltran.com/pubs/SkillTRAN_DOT_PocketGuide_2020.pdf", there is a panel devoted to APTITUDES and the actual reported distribution of DOT occupations with each of the aptitude values.<o:p></o:p>

Not sure if this information is helpful and/or informative, but am hoping adds some value to this discussion.<o:p></o:p>

I have heard back from a few people about this issue and here is what I think; it is best not to disregard actual test scores unless there is a good reason to think they are not an accurate representation of someone's potential or capacity. For example, if a person's test results were lower than what their work or education history would suggest and no apparent reasons to explain the discrepancy (i.e. medical impairments* affecting attention or tolerance to complete tasks, obvious lack of effort), then I would fall back to the work/education history aptitude profile as a more accurate representation of that person's work potential. In such a case, I would still prefer using the work history profile than simply raising the aptitude test scores to include more job matches.

*In the jurisdiction where I work, impairments are only compensable if there is medical evidence to support them.

Dear colleagues,

I recently came across a vocational report in which the evaluator stated that she includes in her recommendations occupations that are up to one aptitude level above the evaluee's test profile (i.e. occupations that require average general learning ability or verbal aptitudes are recommended where the evaluee tested at a low average level). I have always taken the approach, especially in a forensic setting, that if a person does not match the aptitude requirements, then the occupation is likely not suitable.

I would like to hear what you think about this and what is your rationale. Thank you in advance!

Than you Jeffrey, this is good information and a reminder that initial DOT ratings were not always well aligned to the GATB. The rating descriptors are helpful to better understand what each aptitude level means. We have something similar in the Canadian classification. I also agree that there are many factors that can affect test performance and this is why triangulating our test results is important to get a more accurate picture of a person's aptitudes.

Hi Francois - <o:p></o:p>

Here is a link to Chapter 9 - Aptitudes, as described in the 1991 Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs: https://skilltran.com/rhaj/rhaj9.pdf#page=4<o:p></o:p>

We have scanned the entire book, chapter by chapter, since it is out of print from the US Government. https://skilltran.com/index.php/support-area/documentation/1991rhaj<o:p></o:p>

Average - Value = 3 is defined as the middle 1/3 of the standard distribution across the working population. There is a bell shaped curve often depicted when associated with this range of values, but the curve is not part of the actual published document. So middle 1/3 is the middle 33% of the population, with about 16% less than the average and 16% above. So to interpret test scores, the middle range covers about 34% to 67% of the working population. Performance on tests reported in %ile values may be applicable, depending on the composition of the normative group on which the test was normed and its relationship to the general working population. <o:p></o:p>

Basic statistics aside, lower performance on a testing measure can be negatively influenced by a variety of factors, ranging from personal anxiety, genuine limitation in the tested aptitude, an "off" day, or whatever. When applied to the real world, limited aptitude can sometimes be offset in a learning environment by significant motivation by the individual to learn the subject matter. We admire people who "hit the books" hard to master a subject at hand ... or a training program, or academic degree. So utility of these values can be variable when applied to the n=1 ... when motivation/applied learning and ultimate performance may well exceed test result. <o:p></o:p>

Low average, in the context of the GATB performance should be viewed in the context of the 9 subtests administered. Low average is still within that middle third called "average". Bottom line, check the report to see if subtest values are reported and which values are in which ranges. Many people do well on some areas and bomb out on others. Each of us is gifted differently. Many experience test anxiety.<o:p></o:p>

Also, test scores from GATB do not align perfectly with the task statement examples and rating procedures followed by DOT job analysts. Note the last paragraph on page 9-2. In the DOT, an assignment of value 5 indicates that there is no need for this aptitude at all to perform a specific DOT occupation. This is reinforced by the fact that there are NO DOT occupations with a G value of 5. All occupations require at least SOME intelligence, so there are NO DOT OCCUPATIONS with value of 5 for Aptitude G - General Learning Ability. From our "Pocket Guide to the DOT" - https://skilltran.com/pubs/SkillTRAN_DOT_PocketGuide_2020.pdf", there is a panel devoted to APTITUDES and the actual reported distribution of DOT occupations with each of the aptitude values.<o:p></o:p>

Not sure if this information is helpful and/or informative, but am hoping adds some value to this discussion.<o:p></o:p>

I have heard back from a few people about this issue and here is what I think; it is best not to disregard actual test scores unless there is a good reason to think they are not an accurate representation of someone's potential or capacity. For example, if a person's test results were lower than what their work or education history would suggest and no apparent reasons to explain the discrepancy (i.e. medical impairments* affecting attention or tolerance to complete tasks, obvious lack of effort), then I would fall back to the work/education history aptitude profile as a more accurate representation of that person's work potential. In such a case, I would still prefer using the work history profile than simply raising the aptitude test scores to include more job matches.

*In the jurisdiction where I work, impairments are only compensable if there is medical evidence to support them.

Dear colleagues,

I recently came across a vocational report in which the evaluator stated that she includes in her recommendations occupations that are up to one aptitude level above the evaluee's test profile (i.e. occupations that require average general learning ability or verbal aptitudes are recommended where the evaluee tested at a low average level). I have always taken the approach, especially in a forensic setting, that if a person does not match the aptitude requirements, then the occupation is likely not suitable.

I would like to hear what you think about this and what is your rationale. Thank you in advance!