Lectica's recruitment tools

Four tools to refine your hiring decisions

Check out our recruitment accreditation course—LAP-2.

Human capitalRecruitmentLeader developmentRole complexityOrganizational snapshotLectica for the c-suite

Many assessment batteries for recruitment include metrics, such as personality inventories and assessments of emotional intelligence, that have been shown to be poor predictors of on-the-job performance. And most assessments of mental skill—the best single predictor of performance—are multiple choice tests of general intelligence or content knowledge. Unfortunately, although tests of mental skill outperform job interviews and tests of personality or emotional intelligence, their predictive power is often not as strong as employers would like it to be. We think this is partly because aptitude tests measure whether or not candidates can select correct answers from lists, when what employers really want to know is how well candidates can apply their knowledge and skills in the kind of situations they'll actually face in a given role.

Lectical Assessments are different. They are neither surveys nor multiple-choice assessments. They are sophisticated scenario-based developmental assessments that ask employees to demonstrate how they would apply their knowledge and skills in real-world circumstances in which problems have no single correct answer.

See the LAP-2 preview to learn more about our approach to recruitment.

Lectica offers 2 types of recruitment products:

Products for front-line to mid-level roles—Lectica First and Lectica First Plus

Lectica First affordably delivers customized and objective assessments that measure workplace reasoning—in real time.

Most organizations conduct some kind of pre-screening, such as resume scans, phone interviews, or screening questionnaires. All of these processes are time-consuming and expensive. Lectica First, our pre-screening subscription service, is designed to help employers optimize high volume recruitment.

For employers who prefer to gently tweak their current recruitment process to increase its efficiency and accuracy, we have created Lectica First Plus, which can be used effectively later in the recruitment process.

With both Lectica First products, you will find out if the workplace reasoning skills of prospective employees are adequate to fulfill the complexity demands of a given role.

Products for senior roles—Lectica Suite

The Lectica Suite is composed of three products that help organizations refine senior-level recruitment & promotion decisions—the Complexity Assessment, the Fitness Assessment, and the Compatibility Assessment


Unlimited front-line to mid-level recruitment assessments—on demand

Lectica First is the pronounceable name of Lectica's Field-Indexed Reasoning Skills Tests and the service that delivers them. Lectica First provides customized and objective front-line to mid-level recruitment screening assessments that measure the best predictor of workplace performance—workplace reasoning (see the evidence). Each Lectica First assessment is customized to fit an organization's field of work, the level of the role to be filled, and the primary tasks of the role.

Using Lectica First is easy. A subscription/recruitment manager provides information about a role and its candidates, and we deliver a customized Lectical Assessment that requires candidates to show how they react to, understand, and go about resolving common workplace issues. Scoring is instantaneous, so easily interpreted results are available in real time.

Click here to be notified of the next free Lectica First webinar, or use the form at the bottom of this page to receive estimates for Lectica First subscription and a Role Complexity Analysis.


Customized to fit an organization's field of work, the level of the role to be filled, and the primary tasks of that role.

Scored with CLAS (the revolutionary Computerized Lectical Assessment System).

Lectical Scores delivered in real time.

Unlimited recruitment access.

A simple dashboard showing how well candidates' thinking skills are likely to stand up to the requirements of the target role.


Prior to the activation of a new subscription, we must conduct a General Role Complexity Analysis.

LecticaFirst is appropriate for frontline to mid-level candidates in non-academic fields.

Subscription managers will be asked to provide the detailed role information required for a Precise Role Complexity Analysis 

Candidates should have good or very good English skills. 



Human review of individual scores

Human review of scores for candidates selected for final consideration (includes an assessment of logical coherence) 

Full assessment report and learning suggestions (recommended for hires)

Assessment debrief (recommended for hires)

The Lectica First dashboard

The figure below shows how easy it is to identify the candidates who are most likely to be a good fit—from the perspective of their workplace reasoning skills—for a particular role. In the figure, eight candidates are represented by circles of different colors. The size of the circle represents the range in which a candidate's "true score" is likely to fall. The darker numbers in the score scale on the right represent the desirable score range for the role. Individuals represented with teal circles are "in the zone." Individuals represented by yellow circles have borderline scores, and individuals represented with red circles are out of range. 

You'll notice that people can be underqualified or overqualified for a role. We do not recommend hiring individuals who are overqualified unless you plan to put them on a fast track to a higher position or have another more senior role that may be a better fit. Putting people in a job where they're likely to be more sophisticated thinkers than their boss or colleagues, or in which they will not be appropriately challenged by role requirements, is a recipe for frustration and dysfunction.

A note on cheating

Lectica First assessments are taken online in secure sessions. If you conduct the assessments under observation, it is virtually impossible for test-takers to cheat. Cheating is difficult for a number of reasons:

  • assessment questions call for written judgments and explanations;
  • test takers cannot learn in advance which test form they will be presented with; and
  • attempts to cheat most often result in irregularities that cause CLAS to deliver a particular kind of "low confidence" score.

If you have concerns about cheating, we recommend that you consider retesting final candidates under observation.

Get a Lectica First estimate...

Click here to be notified of the next free LecticaFirst webinar, or use the form below to receive estimates for a LecticaFirst subscription and a LecticaFirst Role Complexity Analysis:

Precise Role Complexity Survey (sample)

Products for senior employees, leaders, & executives


Examines the complexity level and quality of a candidate's real-world decision-making skills. Includes:


Examines the alignment between the capabilities of a candidate and the complexity demands of a specific leadership role. Includes:


Examines the relative skills of a candidate and his or her potential supervisor, peers, and/or subordinates, ideally within the context of the complexity demands of a particular role. (Compare to the Organizational Snapshot and Lectica for the C-suite). Includes:

Product Leader complexity Leader fitness Leader compatibility
Complexity level of real world decision-making X X X
Quality of real-world decision-making X X X
Automatic score review X X X
Rush turnaround available X X X
Personal report X X X
Role Complexity Analysis   X X
Fitness report   X X
Compatibility report     X

Results of a Complexity Assessment are presented graphically in a written report, making it easy to compare candidates. For example, the following graphs depict the scores of three candidates (JR, PD, and AG) on the five broad dimensions measured with the LDMA, our leadership decision-making assessment. The scale on the right shows the score received on the capability represented in each chart. Across dimensions, JR is the candidate who most consistently performs at a higher level. PD tends to perform on the low side, and AG's performance is erratic, with high scores in some areas and quite low scores in others. When it comes to the skills represented here, JR appears to be a better candidate—assuming the role requires her level of skill and she meets other important role criteria.

complexity level comparison
argumentation comparison
perspective coordination scale
contextual thinking scale
collaborative capacity scale

Results are presented graphically in a written report, making it easy to compare candidates. For example, the following graphs depict the scores of three candidates (JR, PD, and AG) on the five broad dimensions measured with the LDMA. The horizontal line represents the "ideal" level of skill for the role being filled. JR is the candidate most consistently "in the zone." PD tends to perform on the low side of role requirements, and AG's performance is erratic, with high scores in some areas and quite low scores in others. When it comes to the skills represented here, JR appears to be a better candidate. Of course, these results must be considered within the context of a complete hiring protocol and the specific needs of the organization.

complexity level comparison
argumentation comparison
perspective coordination scale
contextual thinking scale
collaborative capacity scale

Most hiring processes today include at least some assessment of the alignment between a candidate's beliefs, values, and attitudes and those of the organization. Lectica's Compatibility Assessment looks at another important dimension—developmental compatibilityhow the complexity level of a candidate's skills dovetails with the complexity levels of others' skills.

A bad fit can be toxic. The subordinate whose skills are more developed than those of her boss is likely to become frustrated or disengaged. The teammates of a superstar who consistently outthinks everyone else in the team are likely to become demoralized or hostile. When developmental compatibility is not taken into account situations like this are common, teams suffer and talent is wasted.

The Compatibility Assessment helps organizations build high functioning teams and optimize their leadership hierarchy. It consists of four components:

  1. A developmental analysis of the complexity demands of the types of decisions a candidate will face in a given role, based on job description, competency requirements, and a Role Complexity Survey (example shown at the bottom of this page) results,
  2. An assessment of the complexity level of each participant's (candidate, peers, supervisor, or direct reports) real-world decision-making skills (based on LDMA results),
  3. Assessments of the each participant's contextual thinking, collaborative capacity, perspective coordination, and argumentation skills (based on LDMA results), and
  4. An assessment of the fit between a candidate's capabilities, the complexity demands of the role, and the capabilities of other participants.

A graphic presentation of the results makes it easy to see where potential problems lie. For example, in the graphic above we see a candidate (larger red circle), and six existing team-members (smaller circles), all arranged with respect to a horizontal line representing the complexity demands of the role to be filled. The role and color of the candidate's red circle suggest that she would be likely to struggle with the complexity demands of the role. In addition, one of her subordinates, represented by the yellow circle, has demonstrated more developed skills than she has, and three others have demonstrated skills that are as developed as hers. These results, in combination with other factors like integrity, knowledge, and behavior, could well be part of a recipe for conflict and dysfunction.

All six of the skills targeted by the LDMA—complexity, contextual thinking, collaborative capacity, perspective coordination, decision making progress, and argumentation—are included in the Compatibility Assessment Report.

Recruitment tools for any role

We can build a package that works for any role you need to fill. Feel free to contact us for information or a conversation.

Validity & reliability 

We can say with confidence that Lectical Assessments are the most sophisticated assessments of mental skill in the marketplace today. Each one is based on exhaustive and ongoing research into the development of targeted skills, using a well-vetted set of research methods and our breakthrough technologies. We have conducted numerous studies of validity and reliability, several of which are published in psychometric journals. We invite you to explore our research pages or contact us to learn more.

Selected funders

IES (US Department of Education)

The Spencer Foundation


Dr. Sharon Solloway

The Simpson Foundation

The Leopold Foundation

Donor list

Selected clients

Glastonbury School District, CT

The Ross School

Rainbow Community School

The Study School

Long Trail School

The US Naval Academy

The City of Edmonton, Alberta

The US Federal Government

Advisory Board

Kurt Fischer, Ph.D. Harvard Graduate School of Education, Emeritus

Antonio Battro, MD, Ph.D., One Laptop Per Child

Marc Schwartz, Ph.D. and former high school teacher, University of Texas at Arlington

Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, Ed.D., University of Southern California

Willis Overton, Ph.D., Temple University, Emeritus