For the first time—the world's best workplace assessments by subscription!
Lectical Assessments have been used to support senior and executive recruitment for over 10 years, but the expense of human scoring has prohibited their use at scale. I'm DELIGHTED to report that this is no longer the case. Because of CLAS—our electronic developmental scoring system—we can now deliver customized assessments of workplace reasoning in real time—by annual subscription. We're calling this subscription service lecticafirst.
Lecticafirst is designed as a front-line to mid-level management recruitment assessment subscription service for positions through mid-level management.* It allows you to administer as many lecticafirst assessments as you'd like, any time you'd like. And we've built in several upgrade options, so you can easily obtain more information about candidates that capture your interest.
The current state of recruitment assessment
Two broad constructs are commonly assessed in recruitment—aptitude and personality. These assessments examine factors like literacy, numeracy, role-specific competencies, leadership traits, and cultural fit, and are generally delivered through interviews or through multiple choice or likert-style surveys. Emotional intelligence is also sometimes measured, but thus far, is not producing results that can complete with aptitude tests (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004).
Like Lectical Assessments, aptitude tests are tests of mental ability. High-quality aptitude tests have the highest predictive validity for recruitment purposes, hands down. Hunter and Hunter (1984), in their systematic review of the literature, found an effective range of predictive validity for aptitude tests of .45 to .54. Translated, this means that about 20% to 29% of success on the job was predicted by aptitude. (Interview assessments focused on aptitude generally have predictive validities that are lower.) These numbers do not appear to have changed appreciably since Hunter and Hunter's review.
Personality tests come in a distant second. In their meta-analysis of the literature, Teft, Jackson, and Rothstein (1991) reported an overall relation between personality and job performance of .24. Translated, this means that about 6% of job performance is predicted by personality traits. These numbers do not appear to have been challenged in more recent research (Johnson, 2001).
Why use Lectical Assessments for recruitment?
Lectical Assessments are "next generation" assessments, made possible through a novel synthesis of developmental theory, primary research, and technology. Until now aptitude tests have been the most valid and affordable option for employers. But despite being more predictive than personality tests, aptitude tests still suffer from important limitations. Lectical Assessments address these limitations. For details, take a look at the side-by-side comparison of lecticafirst tests with conventional tests, below.
|Accuracy||Level of reliability (.95–.97) makes them accurate enough for high-stakes decision-making.||Vary greatly. The best aptitude tests have levels of reliability in the .95 range. Many commercially available tests have considerably lower levels of reliability.|
|Time investment||Lectical Assessments are not timed. They usually take from 45–60 minutes, depending on the individual test-taker.||Vary greatly. For acceptable accuracy, tests must have many items and may take hours to administer.|
|Objectivity||Scores are objective (Computer scoring is blind to differences in sex, body weight, ethnicity, etc.)||Scores on multiple choice tests are objective. Scores on interview-based tests are subject to several sources of bias.|
|Expense||Subscription rates are highly competitive. Annual cost-per-employee (based on the number of employees in your organization) ranges from $6 – $10.||Varies greatly.|
|Fit to role: complexity||Lectica employs sophisticated developmental tools and technologies to efficiently determine the relation between role requirements and the level of reasoning skill required to meet those requirements.||We invented this approach, which is based on Fischer's skill theory. It is not directly comparable to other available front-line to mid-level management recruitment approaches.|
|Fit to role: relevance||Lectical Assessments are readily customized to fit particular jobs, and they are direct measures of what's most important—whether or not candidates' workplace reasoning skills are a good fit for a particular job.||Aptitude tests measure people's ability to select correct answers to highly abstract problems. The idea is that these items will measure something that approximates what's most important to employers—whether or not candidates' workplace reasoning skills are a good fit for a particular job.|
|Predictive validity||Predict performance (R = .53, R2 = .28).||Predict performance (R = .45 to .54, R2 = .20 to .29)|
|Cheating||The written response format makes cheating virtually impossible when assessments are taken under observation, and very difficult when taken without observation.||Cheating is relatively easy and rates can be quite high.|
|Formative value||High. Lectical scores are points along a growth dimension. Lecticafirst assessments can be upgraded after hiring, then used to inform employee development plans.||None. Aptitude is a fixed attribute, so there is no room for growth.|
|Continuous improvement||Our assessments are developed with a learning technology that allows us to use feedback about successes and failures to continuously improve the predictive validity of Lecticafirst assessments.||Conventional aptitude tests are built with a technology that does not easily lend itself to continuous improvement.|
* CLAS is not yet fully calibrated for scores above 11.5 on our scale. Scores at this level are more often seen in upper- and senior-level managers and executives. For this reason, we do not recommend using lecticafirst for recruitment above mid-level management.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). The validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.
Johnson, J. (2001). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between personality and individual job performance. In M. R. R. Barrick, Murray R. (Ed.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 83-120).
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. Applied psychology: An International Review, 53(3), 371-399.