Running head: PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 1

Personnel Problems: How Useful is the Wonderlic Personnel Test?

Amy Knapp

Nova Southeastern University

PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 2

Personnel Problems: How Useful is the Wonderlic Personnel Test?

Now, possibly more than ever before, the economy in the United States is a pressing

issue. For many years, the United States has struggled to lower unemployment rates and to

reconcile the fact that, with approximately 22 million workers underemployed or unemployed

(Vo, 2012), there are at least 3.2 million positions that remain unfilled (Sullivan, 2011). In many

ways, psychology is equipped to deal with issues like these. Specifically, the field of industrial-

organizational psychology, one of the newer and more developing areas of psychology, is

concerned with blending the world of work with psychological concepts and tools. This field can

be subdivided into the more specific concentrations of personnel psychology and organizational

psychology. These two divisions focus on different aspects of employment and business.

Organizational psychology is involved with workplace functioning, such as motivation and

leadership, whereas personnel psychology is more concerned with employee recruitment and

selection, as well as matching job performance with job descriptions (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2012

p. 484).

When it comes to hiring, a number of factors are used by employers to determine the best

candidate for a job. An interview is sometimes considered the single most important factor in

making or breaking a deal for employment. A business often places importance on experience

and previous jobs held by a candidate as well, facts that are typically included in one’s resume

which is, of course, the crucial first step in getting noticed by an employer. These tools are often

not enough, however, for an employer to come to a clear decision, especially in today’s market

where an overwhelming number of applicants apply to one job. This is one of the many reasons

why so many employers have historically implemented employee assessments. Assessments can
PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 3

take a number of forms but one common strategy is to determine the cognitive ability of

applicants. While some might contend that other factors, such as motivation and personality, are

more relevant to employee selection (Leverett, Matthews, Lassiter & Bell, 2001), there is much

evidence to suggest cognitive ability deserves attention in this respect. Cognitive ability has been

found to strongly correlate with job training success (Ree & Earles, 1992) and job-related

learning (Schmidt, Hunter & Outerbridge, 1986; Schmidt & Hunter, 1992). Moreover, many

more have concluded that cognitive ability is one of the best predictors of job performance

(Thorndike, 1986; Jensen, 1986; Hunter, 1986; Campbell, 1990). Meanwhile, Hunter & Hunter

(1984) and Schmidt & Hunter (1998) both proclaim cognitive ability to be the single most

important factor in predicting job performance. There are numerous tests that measure cognitive

ability but the Wonderlic Personnel Test is arguably the most economical and most used in

industrial-organizational settings (Leverett et al., 2001). The question to ask, however, is whether

or not its issues and limitations disqualify any justification for its use.

About the Wonderlic

After being used by the United States Navy in 1937 as a means of selecting pilots for

training in World War II (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2010, p. 100), the Wonderlic

Personnel Test (WPT) was first administered publicly in 1938 (Geisinger, 2001). The WPT is a

norm-referenced test which was adapted from a previous assessment, the Otis Self-

Administering Test, and can be administered individually or in groups (Schraw, 2001). The WPT

is intended for use with the working-age population, from 18-year-olds freshly out of high school

to those aged 60 and over. However, current, concrete normative data is quite elusive. Geisinger

(2001) reports that norms are available for working adults, high school graduates, college

graduates, genders, age, education, race, ethnicity, and by position as well as by test form.
PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 4

However, Geisinger (2001) adds that not all normative data is satisfactorily current. This does

seem to be an issue. Downie (1965) indicated that norms were available from 50,000 adults from

20-65 years old. This is the same information provided by Kaplan & Saccuzzo (2012, p. 499)

fifty years later. Belcher (1992) reveals that the 1983 norms are based on 126,000 individuals

but adds that this data was collected in 1966, which makes it far from current. It is possible that

the most recent normative data may be from 1970, as provided by the Wonderlic Company

(1970) and reported by Drdege (1972), in which 251,253 individuals were used to compile

performance norms for age, sex, education, industry, geographic region and position applied for.

When solicited, Dr. Brett Wells, lead research scientist for the Wonderlic Company, offered no

further information about the normative data of the WPT. However, he did provide information

about the Wonderlic Personnel Test-Revised (WPT-R), which was released in 2007 (Kaplan &

Saccuzzo, p. 500), stating that 427 companies and 36,543 test-takers participated in its

development (B. Wells, personal communication, November 5, 2012). Additionally, the WPT is

quite highly correlated with the WPT-R (r=.78) (B. Wells, personal communication, November

5, 2012). Despite its issues, the WPT is widely used and it is purported to have had 200 million

administrations (B. Wells, personal communication, November 5, 2012). Most of these

administrations of the WPT have likely been completed using a paper-and-pencil test but a

computer-based format is also currently available and there are 16 parallel forms of the WPT

(Rosenstein & Glickman, 1994, p. 187). It is also available in large-print, Braille and audiotape

versions (Geisinger, 2001). In addition to three English versions, for the United States, United

Kingdom, and Australia, the WPT has been translated to 11 languages, including Chinese,

Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Portuguese, Spanish, French, German, Russian, Swedish and

Tagalog (Leverette et al., 2001).

PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 5

While it is intended for use in personnel, the WPT is designed to measure one’s ability to

learn and general mental ability, or g, which is a concept taken from Spearman’s theory of

intelligence. In Spearman’s theory, he noted that “…when a set of diverse ability tests are

administered to large unbiased samples of the population, almost all of the correlations are

positive. This phenomenon is called positive manifold, which according to Spearman resulted

from the fact that all tests, no matter how diverse, are influenced by g” (Kaplan & Saccuzzo,

2012, p. 233). With this information in mind, the content of the WPT contains 50 questions with

an allotted completion time of 12 minutes. However, the test manual provides instructions for

adjusting untimed tests (Schraw, 2001). Arranged in order of difficulty, the types of questions on

the WPT include word comparisons, number comparisons, number series, geometric figure

analyses, disarranged sentences, vocabulary, and logical as well as mathematical story problems.

These different types of items are not scaled and the number of correct answers, which is

calculated by the administrator using a key provided with the WPT test, is the score one receives.

Due to the ease of scoring and interpretations, a trained administrator is not necessary. In order to

successfully complete the test, however, the examinee must possess a sixth-grade reading level

and knowledge of how to tell time, the days of the week, months of the year, basic math, U.S.

monetary units, measures and weights (Geisinger, 2001).

Age adjustments are advised for test-takers over the age of 29 (Schraw, 2001), with one

additional point suggested for 30-39 year olds and as much as 5 additional points to be added for

those 60 years of age and older (Schoenfeldt, 1985). Possible scores simply range from 0 to 50

and are intended to indicate whether an applicant for a job is within a range that would be

appropriate for the position applied for. For example, in early versions of the manual

“…[m]inimum scores range from 8 for janitors and other unskilled jobs to over 30 for some
PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 6

professional and managerial jobs” (Drdege, 1972). Later versions of the WPT explain expected

scores further; for instance, the mean score for a Chemist is a 31 and other expected means

include a 26 for Newswriters, 17 for Security Guards and 15 for Warehouse Workers (Guion &

Highhouse, 2006, p. 240). Curiously, both Clerical Workers and National Football League (NFL)

players would be expected to have a mean score of 21 (Guion & Highhouse, 2006, p. 240).

Pesta, Bertsch, Poznanski, & Bommer (2008) indicate the population mean to be 22 (SD=7) (p.

430). This is the same expected average for Bank Tellers (Guion & Highhouse, 2006, p. 240).

As aforementioned, Guion & Highhouse (2006) indicate the average score for NFL

players on the WPT to be 21 (p. 240). Discussing football alongside cognitive ability may seem

peculiar when taken out of a bigger context. In truth, it could be claimed that no discussion of the

Wonderlic would be complete without also mentioning the use of the WPT by the National

Football League. The WPT has been used as part of what is referred to as the NFL Combine

since 1970 (Guion & Highhouse, 2006, p.240). The NFL combine, an employment assessment in

itself, includes a “…series of drills, exercises, interviews, aptitude tests, and physical exams

designed to assess the skills of promising college football players and to predict their

performance in the NFL” (Kuzmits & Adams, 2008, p. 1721). While it may seem odd that a

cognitive ability test would be relevant to performance on a football field, the score one receives

on his Wonderlic is probably the most discussed result of the combine screenings. In fact, the

WPT is viewed as so important that players often hire tutors to improve their chances of a high

score (Hart & Sheldon, 2007, p.29). As Kuzmits & Adams (2008) point out, “[f]ew studies have

examined scientifically whether a relationship exists between a graduating collegiate football

player’s combine performance and subsequent performance as a professional football player” (p.

1721). Sawyer, Ostarello, Suess & Dempsey (2002) found that there was a significant
PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 7

relationship between many measures of performance and players’ ability level on the vertical

jump, while other researchers have found the combined results of players’ physical assessments

to be a good to fair predictor of future performance (McGee & Burkett, 2003). However, the

WPT has yet to be examined thoroughly and, in fact, Kuzmits & Adams (2008), using a small

sample, concluded that the WPT is unrelated to NFL success. Nevertheless, the League has

continued to hold the combine assessment and to incorporate the WPT as part of the process for

decades.

Analytic Information

For any assessment to gain respect and longevity as one that can be relied on, it must

have demonstrative reliability and validity. In the case of the WPT, there is a sizable amount of

evidence to justify its endorsement. Test-retest reliability has been found to range from .82 to .94

(Geisinger, 2001; Dodrill, 1983) and parallel forms reliability has a range of .73 to .95

(Geisinger, 2001). The Kudor-Richardson coefficient establishes internal consistency at .88

(Geisinger, 2001). In terms of validity, numerous experts look favorably upon the Wonderlic and

accept it as a good measure of cognitive ability (Belcher, 1992; Bell, Matthews, Lassiter &

Leverett, 2002; Geisinger, 2001; Hawkins, Faraone, Pepple, Seidman & Tsuang, 1990; Matthews

& Lassiter, 2007; Schmidt, 1985; Schraw, 2001; Schulte, 2004). If that were not enough to

establish content validity, the widespread use of the WPT for over 70 years is more than

encouraging. Given the vast variety of question types and the results of other validity checks, it

seems fair to conclude that the WPT possesses good content validity.

Construct Validity is similarly well-established for the WPT. The assessment has

demonstrated convergent validity by correlating with several other measures of cognitive ability.

The correlation between the WPT and the (full scale) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised
PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 8

(WAIS-R) was found to be .92 (Schulte, Ree & Carretta, 2004, p. 1061), while its correlation

with the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB), Aptitude G, is similarly high at .90 (Hunter,

1989). Matthews & Lassiter (2007) found the correlation between the WPT and the Woodcock-

Johnson-Revised (WJ-R) Tests of Cognitive Ability Battery to be a moderate .55 and another

moderate correlation was found between the WPT and the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult

Intelligence Test (KAIT), where a .66 correlation resulted (Bell et al., 2002). Furthermore, the

WPT has been found to measure both crystallized and fluid intelligence, as evidence by Bell et

al. (2002) in their comparison of the KAIT scales of Crystallized IQ (Gc) & Fluid IQ (Gf), which

were both moderately correlated with the WPT (r = .62 and r = .54, respectively). However, in

the conclusion of their investigation, Bell et al. (2002) suggest that, in many situations, it may be

wise to use alternate tests in order to gauge individual scores for Gf and Gc, as numerous jobs

may require one over the other (pp. 117-118). When it comes to divergent validity, according to

Schraw (2001), the WPT is uncorrelated with a wide variety of personality assessment measures.

A specific example of evidence in support of divergent validity is found in comparing the WPT

to the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). The WPT correlated most highly with the

“Openness to Experience” scale, r = .255, and with the “Neuroticism” scale, r = -.242 (Schulte et

al., 2004, p. 1065). These weak correlations are not only logical, but can also be considered

negligible.

The evidence for criterion validity is not as convincing as that of other forms of validity.

As mentioned, Schmidt & Hunter (1998) found g to be the most valid predictor of job

performance (r = .51) and job training performance (r - .56). However, the WPT specifically has

been found to be positively correlated with educational and vocational success (Schraw, 2001).

Additionally, those who score high on the WPT tend to gain more from formalized training and
PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 9

be more likely to learn from on-the-job experiences (Schulte et al., 2004). Geisinger (2001)

reports that predictive validity for performance ranges from .22 to .67 in selected job categories.

This range is quite a large one considering a .22 correlation would account for less than 5% of

variance in job performance. This evidence may still satisfactorily suggest predictive validity but

there is even less apparent evidence for concurrent validity. Although Geisinger (2001) does note

that those who have attained higher education tend to score higher, there is no definitive proof

that the higher scores are not merely the result of education.

Limitations and Potential Biases

Some of the problems surrounding the WPT have already been alluded to. Evidence for

criterion validity is lacking and more research in this area could definitely be used, especially

when it comes to verifying concurrent validity apart from the potential influence of educational

attainment. Schoenfeldt (1985) noted what he referred to as a substantial correlation between the

WPT and education, citing a range of r = .3 to .8. Drdege (1972) raised the same issue,

describing this as a serious limitation that can lead to unfair disadvantages and even

discrimination against those who are less educated. Unfortunately, the shortcomings of the WPT

do not end here. Several have also criticized the overall organization of literature pertaining to

the WPT as well as the apparent lack or withholding of information. Foley (1972) has several

criticisms related to the WPT manual and corresponding publications, faulting them for

containing a lack of organization, a lack of information, particularly in providing inadequate data

to evaluate the measurement, in addition to having poor presentation. Foley (1972) also provides

an interesting anecdote, obtained from his communication with the tabulation company, in which

he requested information for the WPT norms and the company refused to provide any. Schmidt

(1985) had similar complaints, especially when it came to information about validity being
PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 10

lacking. Belcher (1992) echoed these sentiments, pointing out that the testing company needs to

include more information about their tests, the participants used to gather the information, and to

present this data in an accessible manner. Schoenfeldt (1985) noted disorganization in the testing

manual materials and specifically expressed concern for inconsistencies in the information

provided to assist administrators in dealing with Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) liability.

Perhaps in part because there is a lack of information on how to use the WPT, several

reviewers have remarked that the test may often be inappropriately used. Foley (1972) and

Schmidt (1985) agree that there is no supporting data to justify one of the key elements of the

WPT, the decided-upon minimum scores for occupations. Foley (1972) also believes the measure

is most appropriate for a limited population, which primarily includes white-collar workers. He

additionally notes that, despite having many parallel forms, the widespread use of the test

impairs its effectiveness due to the resultant familiarity with the WPT. Drdege (1972) expresses

similar concerns about the use of “cutting scores,” in which some scores are considered too high

for certain occupations. Drdege (1972) says that there is no evidence to support this practice and

that there is no proof that it is advantageous to anyone, whether it be employers or job seekers.

More recently, Geisinger (2001) made many of the same comments about the WPT and

Schoenfeldt (1985) was very concerned about the improper use of the WPT and especially how

this might affect protected groups.

Schoenfeldt (1985) cited the Supreme Court decision of Griggs v. Duke Power Company

(1971), in which it was ruled that the tests used by Duke Power Company, including the

Wonderlic, lacked validity and, therefore, the use of them was not justified, making them

inappropriate. The court also found the test practices to adversely impact protected groups.

Schoenfeldt (1985) agrees with the court decision and believes that the test could be used to
PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 11

discriminate against certain groups and recommends other methods of testing where this risk

may be present. One of the major reasons for these concerns is the fact that mean and median

scores on the WPT are vastly different for whites (22.76 and 23) compared to African-Americans

(16.20 and 16) and Hispanic-Americans (17.26 and 17), which can lead to obvious problems

when a member of one of these minority groups and a white person are competing for a job

(Geisinger, 2001). To remedy this situation, the 1983 manual for the WPT explained that group

norms should be used to prevent adverse impact (Schmidt, 1985). This practice, of course, was

made illegal with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2012, p. 55),

making it now more difficult to know how this problem is to be handled in occupational settings.

Aside from the above mentioned dilemmas, there are other groups for whom the WPT

may be inappropriate and/or who may be put at a disadvantage. For example, Edinger et al.

(1985) and Hawkins et al. (1990) both found the WPT to be an inappropriate measure for

populations suffering from mental illness. Hawkins et al. (1990) noted that types of brain

damage, visiospatiel disabilities and even amotivational states could undermine the value of the

WPT as a measure of intelligence (p. 199). Additionally, the single-score format of the WPT is a

limitation for such populations, as potential functional deficiencies will not be detected, as is the

case with other measures (Hawkins et al., 1990, p. 200). Geisinger (2001) also raised issue with

the speeded nature of the test, postulating that this may provide a disadvantage for those with

disabilities, below-average English skills and older populations. This might be exactly why

Rosenstein & Glickman (1994) found score discrepancies in their aged sample. Rosenstein &

Glickman (1994) compared two groups, one comprised of 40-55 year olds and the other made up

of 56-84 year olds and found significant differences in not only the scores of the two groups but

also in the number of items attempted by each group. The 56 and over group attempted
PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 12

significantly fewer items, a result that occurred regardless of age adjustments and independent of

print-sizes, which were varied across both groups. Finally, another probable flaw has arisen

pertaining to the testing of non-native English speakers and to the recent development of foreign

language equivalents of the WPT. Belcher (1992) points out that the WPT makes no

accommodations for non-native English speakers and that the speeded nature of the test likely

causes these individuals to be disadvantaged. Because of this, Belcher (1992) concludes:

[T]he Wonderlic fails to meet the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
(AERA, APA, & NCME, 1985). Instances of noncompliance include failure to provide a
testing situation designed to minimize threats to test reliability and validity arising from
language differences (Standard 13.1) and lack of information necessary for appropriate
test use and interpretation with linguistically diverse test takers (Standard 13.3).

The development of foreign language equivalents should partially remedy this situation,

however, Geisinger (2001) remarks that the validity of these parallel forms is questionable

because there is an absence of validation data provided. It is equally unclear as to how accurate

these translations are (Geisinger, 2001).

Conclusions

My interests in helping people have always drawn me to psychology. Along the way, I

have also discovered that I have a knack for assessing the potential and skills of others. Over the

years I have sort of made a hobby of placing people I know in appropriate careers or jobs. This

pastime and my background in psychology, along with my experiences acquiring a business

degree, have led me to be interested in a career within employee selection and the field of

organizational psychology. Thus, I found it only appropriate to consider the usefulness of an

assessment instrument that is relevant to a career in job placement or human resources and a test

that I may someday come to use to make more informed hiring and job matching decisions. The

test that stood out to me was the Wonderlic Personnel Test. Realistically, a personnel test should
PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 13

be brief and, yet, also relatively accurate, since decisions often have to be made quickly in

business. After all, in the business world, time is money. Thus, the Wonderlic seemed to fit the

bill. However, upon rather thoroughly reviewing the literature available on the WPT, the

instrument seems to be very limited, at best. It is clear that the relevance of the WPT in certain

contexts may be null, such as its use by the NFL combine; but that instance is a bit outside of the

intended use of the WPT and not much of a surprise. When all of the other issues with the WPT

are taken into account and it is revealed just how many groups are potentially excluded from

attaining a fair and accurate score, though, this cannot be ignored. It is, furthermore, troublesome

how little effort is made by the Wonderlic Company to provide detailed, easily accessible

information about the soundness of their test. Readily obtainable and verifiable data should

always be the goal whenever a company wants its products to be used and taken seriously, and

Wonderlic, Inc. seems to be establishing a reputation for being less than forthcoming. At some

point, this begins to make a test seem suspect.

The world has changed quite a bit since the advent of intelligence theory and even since

the birth of the WPT. In the current state of affairs, obtaining gainful employment has become a

challenge for everyone, regardless of intelligence, education, race, ethnicity, or personal

circumstances. The law does not tolerate discrimination or the putting in place of obstacles for

selected groups. Simply because the WPT has experienced widespread use for a number of

decades does not mean it should be continually used without scrutiny. Given the evidence,

certainty can only be extended to the fact that the WPT seems to accurately assess general mental

ability in white professionals under the age of 56 who are free of psychological disorders and

disability and who speak English as their native language. This is a very narrow scope, however,

beyond it, I could not feel comfortable endorsing the WPT until it has undergone intense
PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 14

scientific investigation that yields current normative data, with satisfactory reliability and

validity checks, and more rigorous efforts have been made to establish clear limitations of the

WPT. Until then, if one must use the WPT, it should always be used with several other means of

assessment (i.e., interview, job history, education, and other tests) and use should ideally be

limited to white-collar environments where the test-takers have some formal education and

adequate reading and English abilities.

 PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 15

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council

on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, Inc.

Belcher, M. J. (1992). Review of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. In J. J. Kramer & J.C. Conoley (Eds.).

The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental

Measurements.

Bell, N. L., Matthews, T. D., Lassiter, K. S., & Leverett, J. P. (2002). Validity of the Wonderlic

Personnel Test as a measure of fluid or crystallized Intelligence: Implications for career

assessment. North American Journal of Psychology, 4(1), 113-120.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational

psychology. In M. D. Dunnette, and L. M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of industrial and

Organizational Psychology, Volume One (2nd ed.), (pp. 688-732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press, Inc.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Furnham, A. (2010). The Psychology of personnel selection. Cambridge: UK.

Cambridge University Press.

Dodrill, C. B. (1983). Long-term reliability of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 51(2), 316–317

Downie, N. M. (1965). Review of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. In O.K. Buros (Ed.). The sixth mental

measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Drdge, R. C. (1972). Review of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. In O.K. Buros (Ed.). The seventh mental

measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

 PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 16

Edinger, J. D., Shipley, R. H., Watkins, C. E., & Hammett, E. B. (1985). Validity of the Wonderlic

Personnel Test as a brief IQ measure in psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 53, 937-939.

Foley, J.P. (1972). Review of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. In O.K. Buros (Ed.). The seventh mental

measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Geisinger, K. (2001). Review of the Wonderlic Personnel Test and scholastic level exam. In B. S. Plake

& J.C. Impara (Eds.). The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1360−1363).

Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Griggs v. Duke Power Company. 401 U.S. 424(a) (1971).

Guion, R.M. & Highhouse, S. (2006). Essentials of personnel assessment and selection. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Hart, A. & Sheldon, G. (2007). Employment personality tests decoded. Franklin Lakes, NJ: The Career

Press.

Hawkins K.A., Faraone, S.V., Pepple, J.R., Seidman, L.J, & Tsuang, M.T. (1990). WAIS-R validation

of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a brief intelligence measure in a psychiatric sample.

Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 198-201.

Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge and job performance. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 29: 340-362.

Hunter, J. E. (1989). The Wonderlic Personnel Test as a predictor of training success and job

performance. Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic.

Hunter, J. E. & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.

Psychological Bulletin, 96: 72-98.

Jensen, A. R. (1986). G: Artifact or reality? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29: 301-331.

 PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 17

Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2012). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues

(8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kuzmits, F.E. & Adams, A.J. (2008). The NFL combine: Does it predict performance in the National

Football League? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(6), 1721-1727.

Leverett, J. P., Matthews, T. D., Lassiter, K. S., & Bell, N. L. (2001). Validity comparision of the

General Ability Measure for Adults with the Wonderlic Personnel Test. North American Journal

of Psychology, 3, 172-182.

Matthews, T. D. & Lassiter, K. S. (2007). Does the Wonderlic Personnel Test measure Gf or Gc?

Psychological Reports, 100, 707-712.

McGee, K. & Burkett, L. (2003). The National Football League combine: a reliable predictor of draft

status? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 7(1), 6–11.

Pesta, B. J., Bertsch, S., Poznanski, P. J., & Bommer, W. H. (2008). Sex differences on elementary

cognitive tasks but not global IQ. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 429-431.

Ree, M. J., and Earles, J. A. (1992). Intelligence is the best predictor of job performance. Psychological

Science, 1, 86-89.

Rosenstein, R., & Glickman, A.S. (1994). Type size and performance of the elderly on the Wonderlic

Personnel Test. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 13, 185-192.

Sawyer, D, Ostarello, J, Suess, M, and Dempsey, M. (2002). The relationship between football playing

ability and selected performance measures. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16,

611–616.

Schmidt, F. L. (1985). Review of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.). The ninth

mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1755–1757). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental

Measurement.
 PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 18

Schmidt, F. L., and Hunter, J. E. (1992). Development of causal models of processes determining job

performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 89-92.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel

psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological

Bulletin, 124, 262–274.

Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., and Outerbridge, A. N. (1986). The impact of job experience and ability on

job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job performance. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 71, 432-439.

Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1985). Review of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.). The ninth

mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1757–1758). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental

Measurement

Schraw, G. (2001). Review of the Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam. In B. S. Plake

& J.C. Impara (Eds.). The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1363−1364). Lincoln,

NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Schulte, M. J., Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Not much more than g and

personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1059–1068

Sullivan, B. (2011, October 10). Need work? US has 3.2 million unfilled job openings. CNBC News.

Retrieved from

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44838614/Need_Work_US_Has_3_2_Million_Unfilled_Job_Openings.

Thorndike, R. L. (1986). The role of general ability in prediction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29,

332-339.

Vo, L. T. (2012, November 2). Even after solid gains, 22 million Americans are unemployed or

underemployed. National Public Radio, planet money: The economy explained. Retrieved from
 PERSONNEL PROBLEMS: HOW USEFUL 19

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/11/02/164131714/22-million-americans-are-unemployed-

or-cant-find-full-time-work.

Wonderlic, E. F. (1970). Performance Norms on Job Applicants Reliability and Validity. Northfield,

Illinois: E. F. Wonderlic and Associates.