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 these tests outperform tests of personality and emotional intelligence, their predictive power is often not as strong as employers would like it to be. We think this is at least partly because aptitude tests measure whether or not candidates can select correct answers from lists, when what we really want to know is how well candidates can apply their knowledge and skills to the kind of issues 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, and the ability to leverage the knowledge and skills of others is essential for success.
We also offer a subscription service—LecticaFirst—especially for front-line to mid-level recruitment screening. Lecticafirst affordably delivers customized and objective assessments that measure workplace reasoning—in real time.
|Complexity level of real world decision-making||X||X||X|
|Quality of real-world decision-making skills||X||X||X|
|Automatic score review||X||X||X|
|Rush turnaround available||X||X||X|
|Role Complexity Analysis||X||X|
Results of the Leader Capability 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.
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.
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 Leader Compatibility Assessment looks at another important dimension—developmental compatibility—how 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 Leader Compatibility Assessment helps organizations build high functioning teams and optimize their leadership hierarchy. It consists of four components:
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 personality, beliefs, and attitude, 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 Leader Compatibility Assessment Report.
Lecticafirst is the pronounceable name of our Field-Indexed Reasoning Skills Tests and the subscription service that delivers them. Lecticafirst provides customized and objective front-line to mid-level recruitment screening assessments that measure the best predictor of workplace performance—workplace reasoning. Each Lecticafirst assessment is customized to fit your organization's field of work, the level of the role to be filled, and the primary tasks of the role.
Using Lecticafirst is easy. You provide information about a role and its candidates, and we deliver a customized Lectical Assessment that requires candidates to show how they understand and think about resolving common workplace issues. Scoring is instantaneous, so you'll be able to view easily interpreted results in real time.
Click here to be notified of the next free Lecticafirst webinar, or use the form at the bottom of this page to receive estimates for a Lecticafirst subscription and a Lecticafirst Role Complexity Analysis.
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 with 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 challenged by the role requirements of their role, is a recipe for frustration and dysfunction.
LecticaFirst 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 very difficult for a number of reasons:
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:
We can build a package that works for any role you need to fill. Feel free to contact us for information.
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 way in which targeted skills develop over time, 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.