Cognitive Consultants International (CCI) scientifically develops cognitive testing for specific professional domains. Organizations mostly use 'off the shelf' existing general cognitive testing. These tests were not developed for specific professional domains and therefore do not address and tap onto the specific cognitive abilities needed for performing the specific tasks related to the domain in question.
At CCI we design the test by first establishing the cognitive abilities, the 'Cognitive Profile', needed for performing well in the specific domain that the tests are going to be used for. This is achieved by a variety of techniques that we specialize in (such as cognitive task analysis, knowledge and skill engineering, shadowing and interviewing experts, and others).
Once the Cognitive Profile is establish, we scientifically develop cognitive tests that measure and quantify the specific elements of the cognitive profile (for details of the scientific background for such cognitive testing, see our work on 'cognitive profiles of US Air Force pilots' and in the medical domain; for a specific example within the forensic domain, see 'fingerprint examiners').
The test we develop provide scores that can determine a minimal threshold for being able to do the job, rank order candidates in terms of their abilities, and other measurements needed for helping selection during recruitment, prediction job performance abilities, and so forth.
If you are interested in using tests, or having tests develop for your specific needs, please write to: firstname.lastname@example.org
The importance of a good fit between cognitive abilities and job requirements is critical and has now been recognized in a whole range of domains. From sports (e.g., Gary, 2009) and chemistry (e.g., Bodner and Guay, 1997; Pribyl and Bodner, 1987; Carter, LaRussa, and Bodner, 1987) to medical surgery and radiology (e.g., Caminiti, 2000; Waywell and Bogg, 1999; Westman, Ritter, Kjellin Torkuist, Wredmark, Fellander, and Enochsson, 2006) and graphics and engineering design (e.g., Yue, 2007).
Selecting the right people for the job not only allows to achieve professional expert performance (including minimizing errors), but also makes training more efficient. It improves both the levels of achievements and the time required for training (e.g., Zamvar, 2004; McClusky, Ritter, Lederman, Gallagher, and Smith, 2005; Cuschieri, Francis, Crosby, and Hanna, 2001).
Therefore, it is cost effective because it minimizes the resources needed for training, as well as allows to reach the levels of performance needed with relative ease. From an organizational point of view, it saves expenditure and effort in dealing with people who find it hard to do the job they are required, or in worse cases, with people who just cannot perform at the levels required (dealing with the people as well as with the consequences of the backlogs they created and errors they may have made). From a personal point of view, it is unfair to require people to do jobs they are not able to do. Hence, it is vital to properly screen and select people to the jobs they can do best.
Tests of cognitive abilities must be developed scientifically, objectively, and require proper validation (e.g., Faulkner, Regehr, Martin, and Reznick, 1996; Dolgin and Nontasak,1990; Martin, Regehr, Reznick, MacRae, Murnaghan, and Hutchison et al., 1997). There are many complex issues in selection of people during recruitment, if one is going to scientifically try to optimize screening practices (e.g., Borman, Hanson, and Hedge, 1997; Borman, Hedge, Ferstl, Kaufman, Farmer, and Bearden, 2003). Some of these issues relate to validity and adequate reliability, and others to learning curves and error analysis (e.g., Ruff, Light and Parker, 1996; Borman et al., 1997, 2003).
The tests we offer focus on cognitive abilities needed for certain professions. However, there are other issues to consider during selection of candidates that are not covered in the tests. These issues include interpersonal skills, motivation, susceptibility to bias, and different aspects of personality (e.g., Merlo and Matveevskii, 2009; Powis, 2009; Dror and Charlton, 2006; Schneider-Kolsky, Wright, and Baird, 2006). However, most of these currently lack reliable tests, relative to quantifying cognitive abilities (Neisser, Boodoo, Bouchard, Boykin, Brody, Ceci, Halpern, Loehlin, Perloff, Sternberg, and Urbina, 1996).
Top of the page