This assessment tool measures several cognitive functions: working memory capacity, processing speed, and visual-spatial ability. The primary task involves encoding two three-dimensional shapes and deciding if the two shapes are the same within a mental rotation or different, i.e., a mirror image with or without mentally rotating it. Performance on this test is a function of correct responses or reaction time to answered questions.
The cognitive model of performance describes within each question components that influence difficulty and reaction time. Factors that influence difficulty and reaction times are size of the rotated object, angular disparity of the two objects, and object mental reflection.
Open Network (Computer-Based), Closed Network (Internet-Based)
Fixed, Random, and Adaptive Administration
60 questions, Cronbach's α = .92
Content, Construct, and Construct Representation
The self-monitoring theory refers to the concept that an individual is capable of exerting expressive control over his or her behaviors, which determines the way their actions are perceived by themselves and others. There are primarily two types of self-monitors: Low Self-Monitors (LSMs) and High Self-Monitors (HSMs). HSMs can be further separated into HSM-1 and HSM-2 subtypes. Socioanalytic theory identifies three life categories in which the differences between LSMs and HSMs can be most starkly contrasted: getting along, getting ahead, and making sense. These three categories are areas in which we all want to succeed, but we each have our own ways of defining these goals, defining what success means, and deciding how to achieve that success.
A person who is characterized as low self-monitoring or “value-expressive” possesses, at the root, the characteristics of consistency and transparency. LSMs want to be perceived by those around them consistently with their own “privately experienced self” and to regulate their actions and decisions in accordance with that desire. An LSM’s actions will be consistent across multiple situations and settings, because they will always act in accordance with their internal values, attitudes, and beliefs.
A person in one of the two high self-monitoring group types can be characterized as “charismatic” or a “social chameleon.” Unlike the LSM who is cross-situationally consistent, the typical HSM is cross-situationally variable, altering their values and behaviors to fit differing social expectations across multiple distinct settings. High self-monitors thrive on positive social feedback. The characteristic that distinguishes HSM-1s from HSM-2s is the level of ability the HSM-2 has in modulating his or her expression behavior—the HSM-2 takes it to a whole other level.
A value-expressive LSM may prefer the knowledge that with any changes they make, they are one step closer to a true expression of themselves. If they believe a product works as it should and is in line with their personal values, they will be favorable toward it. Low self-monitors are consistent and reliable across multiple types of situations.
A social-adjustive HSM may be motivated by the knowledge that as they make lifestyle changes, the image they present to the world is enhanced. If they believe a product gives them a more desirable image, or reflects more positively on them personally, they will be favorable toward it. High self-monitors are flexible and kinetic, adjusting to social situations as the moment demands.
Getting along, getting ahead, and making sense—if you think about it, these three goals encompass every decision we make. Whether it matters more to us that our actions express our authentic selves, or more that others perceive us (and we perceive ourselves) to be successful, we all strive to fulfill these goals. The only difference is in the decisions we make up to the moment of fulfillment. Understanding how an individual is motivated to be successful, and how he or she defines what that success is, means that rewards and motivational messaging can be tailored to get the best out of any person.
The single best predictor of job performance is general mental intelligence (Schmidt & Hunter, 2004), which can be classified into two highly correlated subtypes: crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence. Crystallized intelligence measures knowledge, abilities, and skills typically acquired over an extended period through a formal education process (Bryant, Davis, Hill, & Blackwell, 2013). In contrast, fluid intelligence measures the ability to evaluate novel problems, identify subtle patterns, and make appropriate inferences based upon information in working memory (Cattell, 1963). The Abstract Reasoning Test (ART) is primarily a measure of fluid intelligence and working memory capacity (Embretson, 1998, Embretson & Reise, 2000).
The primary task involved in the ART is viewing a 3 by 3 matrix with an incomplete cell located along the third column and third row of the matrix. Examinees are required to identify the appropriate image that would complete the matrix. Six to eight options are provided. See an example of an item below. Performance on the ART is a function of the pattern of correctly identified responses. The score range is from -3 (Low) to 3 (High). The standard deviation of scores is 1.0. This facilitates transformation to any scale given a target mean and standard deviation (e.g., mean = 500, standard deviation = 100).
The ART is supported by a cognitive model. The cognitive model of performance describes within each question the components that influence difficulty and reaction time (Embretson, 1998). Factors that influence the difficulty and reaction time of ART items include level of abstraction, memory load, and image construction pattern (Embretson & Reise, 2000). These factors account for well over 77% of the variation in assessment item performance (Embretson, 1998). This is solid evidence supporting item-level validation of the ART.
Paper & Pencil, Open Network (Computer-Based), Closed Network (Internet-Based)
Fixed, Random, and Adaptive Administration
20 questions, Cronbach's α > .80
The ART is significantly correlated with other well-established measures of fluid intelligence such as the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM). The RAPM is considered as one of the gold standards in terms of measuring fluid intelligence in work and educational settings. The correlation between the ART and RAPM is very strong and statistically significant, Γ = .78, ρ < .01.
Also in terms of construct validity, there are other psychological constructs and tests that are theoretically and empirically related to fluid intelligence. The assessment tools and the statistical evidence of association with fluid intelligence (as measured by the ART) include the following: Arithmetic Reasoning, Γ = .467, ρ < .01; Math Knowledge, Γ = .484, ρ < .01; Mechanical Comprehension, Γ =.367, ρ < .01; General Science, Γ =.385, ρ <.01; US Air Force Qualification Test, Γ = .545, ρ < .01; and employee pay, Γ = .206, < .05. All of these correlations are statistically significant and support the legal defensibility of using the ART as a measure of fluid intelligence in the workplace.