REASONING – SPATIAL measures the spatial reasoning abilities of an individual and more specifically its ability to mentally rotate an object in 2D or 3D. These abilities are particularly important in the areas of STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics).
Measure the ability of mental rotation
Score comparison between STEM and no-STEM population
Score and personalised comments
The candidate receives an overall score and personalised comments.
Mental rotation ability requires very good skills in mental visualisation skills since it is about to mentally represent a complex object and repositioning it in space.
Mental rotation is useful in many professional fields, for example in interior architecture, sculpture or pottery, even in haute couture.
Definition of spatial reasoning
Comparison between STEM and no-STEM population
Mapping to relevant competencies possible?
Online - desktop / tablet, Online - mobile
16 mins8 questions
English (UK), English (US), French, Hindi, Spanish
Our platform works with all modern computer operating systems including Windows, MAC-OS and Linux and no supervision required to administer the test. A PDF version of the questionnaire is available on request. An administrator must manually enter candidate responses into the online platform to generate reports.
The testwas designed to be easily used by individuals from diverse backgrounds and those with a range of special needs. All test-takers are able to adjust visual screen specifications based on individual requirements. Alternatively, for blind candidates or those with severe visual disabilities, items may be read aloud by a trained administrator. Individuals with hearing impairments are not excluded from taking the questionnaire since all content is presented visually.
This is a timed test but we are able to allocate the required duration to complete the test for individuals with learning disabilities as per their needs.
Central Test guarantees the security and confidentiality of data generated during the administration of online tests. Access codes are encrypted in the database and cannot be accessed by anyone. Passwords are computationally generated and are not visible to companies. A URL rewriting module (secure link generator) is installed and has transparent parameter passing for the user.
Our personality assessment is based on six major dimensions of personality i.e. HEXACO model. The factors that make up the HEXACo model:
Openness to Experience
We provide three different types of reports which can be used by interviewers. Please refer to the reports section for further information. We provide lots of support to help our clients use our tailored assessments, including full debrief sessions before interviews commence to answer any questions arising and to do a deeper dive into the candidates’ personality, ability, and derailment reports.
Note: The SOVA Cognitive ability tests (verbal, numerical, and logical) are timed tests although the time is not present on screen. Therefore, we ask candidates to work as accurately and as quickly as they can – remember, ability tests measure maximum performance.
<p>This test provides your candidates with an opportunity to demonstrate the style and approach they prefer to take towards challenges at work. The picture they provide will help us understand how they see themselves in relation to working in a leadership role.</p>
<p>They will be presented with a sequence of scenarios describing a situation or challenge. They will also see a selection of possible approaches that they could take to respond to the situation or challenge described in the scenario.</p>
<p>For each scenario, they will be expected to tick the most effective or least effective approach they would take in each fictitious scenario. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<h4><strong>Provides a realistic job preview</strong></h4>
<p>Map competencies to your organisational framework providing candidates with a more realistic job preview compared to relying on interviews alone.</p>
<h4><strong>Eliminates hiring bias</strong></h4>
<p>Measure how well candidates respond to a host of work related scenarios, allowing you to find the most competent candidates for the role.</p>
<h4><strong>Saves time &amp; hiring resources</strong></h4>
<p>Allows candidates to self select out if they realise the job isn&rsquo;t a good fit for them - saving you valuable time and resources.</p>
<p><strong>When used alongside other psychometrics, such as personality questionnaires or cognitive ability tests, employers are able to build up a holistic picture of how the individual would behave in the role.</strong></p>
<p><em>Are you looking to develop bespoke situational judgements tets or looking to host your own test on our platform?&nbsp;</em></p>
<p>We are Business Psychologists&nbsp;with over 25 years of&nbsp;experience in developing tests. Our Psycruit platform is ready to host your own test. Please contact us by email@example.com who will be able to help you with your enquiry. Talent Grader is one of our authorised partners in the UK.&nbsp;</p>
Bias results when test performance is affected by unintended factors and those factors are not evenly distributed between groups. This results in group differences in test performance that are not related to the constructs the test is intended to measure. For example, a test of numerical reasoning that uses a lot of text may be biased against people who have English as an additional language. Group differences do not result from different levels of numerical reasoning ability, but from questions being more difficult for some due to their use of language.
Test developers may address bias through some or all of the following:
. Providing a clear rationale for what the test is, and is not, intended to measure
· Reviewing content to ensure it is accessible and free from complex language
· Ensuring scoring is automated and objective (i.e. free from user bias)
· Providing evidence of any group difference in test scores
· Examining the effect of group membership on individual questions – sometimes referred to as ‘differential item functioning’ or ‘dif’
· Ensuring norm groups used for comparisons are representative of the populations they reflect
· Providing guidance on using the reports and interpreting constructs measured
Reliability is an indicator of the consistency of a psychometric measure (Field, 2013). It is usually indicated by a reliability coefficient(r) as a number ranging between 0 and 1, with r = 0 indicating no reliability, and r = 1 indicating perfect reliability. A quick heads up, don’t expect to see a test with perfect reliability.
Reliability may refer to a test’s internal consistency, the equivalence of different versions of the test (parallel form reliability) or stability over time (test-retest reliability). Each measures a different aspect of consistency, so figures can be expected to vary across the different types of reliability.
The EFPA Test Review Criteria states that reliability estimates should be based on a minimum sample size of 100 and ideally 200 or more. Internal consistency and parallel form values should be 0.7 or greater to indicate adequate reliability, and test-retest values should be 0.6 or greater.
Most test scores are interpreted by comparing them to a relevant reference or norm group. This puts the score into context, showing how the test taker performed or reported relative to others. Norm groups should be sufficiently large (the EFPA Test Review Criteria states a minimum of 200) and collected within the last 20 years. Norm groups may be quite general (e.g. ‘UK graduates’) or more occupationally specific (e.g. ‘applicants to ABC law firm’).
A key consideration is the representativeness of the norm group and how it matches a user’s target group of test takers. It is therefore important to consider the distribution of factors such as age, gender and race in norm groups to ensure they are representative of the populations they claim to reflect. This is particularly important with norms claiming to represent the ‘general population’ or other wide-ranging groups. Occupationally specific norms are unlikely to be fully representative of the wider population, but evidence of their composition should still be available.
Validity shows the extent to which a test measures what it claims to, and so the meaning that users can attach to test scores. There are many different types of validity, though in organisational settings the main ones are content, construct and criterion validity. Reference may also be made to other types of validity such as face validity, which concerns the extent to which a test looks job-relevant to respondents.
Content validity relates to the actual questions in the test or the task that test takers need to perform. The more closely the content matches the type of information or problems that a test taker will face in the workplace, the higher its content validity. For tests such as personality or motivation, content validity relates more to the relevance of the behaviours assessed by the test rather than the actual questions asked.
Construct validity shows how the constructs measured by the test relate to other measures. This is often done by comparing one test against another. Where tests measure multiple scales, as is the case with assessments of personality and motivation, it is also common to look at how the measure's scales relate to each other.
Criterion validity looks at the extent to which scores on the test are statistically related to external criteria, such as job performance. Criterion validity may be described as 'concurrent' when test scores and criterion measures are taken at the same time, or 'predictive' when test scores are taken at one point in time and criterion measures are taken some time later.
Construct and criterion validity are often indicated by correlation coefficients which range from 0, indicating no association between the test and criterion measures, and 1, indicating a perfect association between the test and criterion measures. It is difficult to specify precisely what an acceptable level of validity is, as this will depend on many factors including what other measures the test is compared against or what criteria are used to evaluate its effectiveness. However, for criterion validity, tests showing associations with outcome measures of less than 0.2 are unlikely to provide useful information and ideally criterion validity coefficients should be 0.35 or higher. The samples used for criterion validity studies should also be at least 100.
Overall, whilst a publisher should provide validity evidence for their test, validity comes form using the right test for the right purpose. Therefore, users need to use available validity evidence to evaluate the relevance of the test for their specific purpose.
Please ensure you add the cost of the product (from the cost section) first before adding any of the reports, additional materials or any other costs.
You can add a report even if it is free or £0. This will ensure our supplier is aware of your requirements fully. Please contact us if you have any queries.