By Cognadev on August 15, 2019
The validity of CPP results
The CPP capitalises on a person’s cognitive responses to new and unfamiliar information. A candidate’s first CPP results are thus usually the most valid, unless:
- The candidate’s performance has been affected by emotional factors including extreme performance anxiety, stress, preoccupation and/or demotivation (note that a manageable degree of performance anxiety may even improve concentration and will thus not affect the validity of the report);
- Physical factors related to excessive fatigue, medication, disability and/or pain, for example, have played a role;
- The assessment took place under unfavourable assessment conditions, which may include noise, extreme temperatures, technological problems and/or other disturbances; and
- A considerable period of time has elapsed since the previous CPP assessment, during which time the candidate may have developed further cognitive skills.
In the absence of the factors listed above, and in instances where the first CPP can be regarded as valid, a reassessment should be postponed by at least 5 years or more if possible. An exact time frame for valid reassessment is, however, difficult to specify.
At times it is, however, useful to re-administer the CPP to determine the impact that developmental initiatives, work exposure, maturity, changes in attitude, self-confidence and interests may have had on a candidate’s cognitive functioning. It may also be useful to reassess those whose existing CPP reports are of questionable validity.
What if there are several sets of CPP results available?
When several sets of CPP results are available for one candidate, qualitative interpretation by a skilled practitioner is required. Cognadev consultants can assist in this regard. Cognadev consultants normally also link the most valid set of results to the client’s account. Accredited practitioners may, however, request access to all the various sets of results of a particular candidate.
The potential impact of CPP reassessment
Certain processing scores are more easily affected by reassessment than others. The “Learning”, “Speed”, “Judgement” and “Memory” scores of a second or third set of CPP results are often somewhat elevated – but not for all candidates. Other dimensions are, however, more resistant to change. These include the “Potential level of work” indication, as well as the “Units of information”, “Complexity” and “Integration” scores.
It seems that candidates who prefer familiarity are more likely to obtain higher scores when reassessed, whereas candidates who tend to seek cognitive challenge and who achieved strategic profiles with a first CPP assessment, may not find a repeated exposure to the task as engaging. The latter candidates may, therefore, not apply themselves as rigorously as they initially did. This may result in somewhat lower reassessment scores for such candidates. Their first set of CPP results, thus, remain the most valid.
Statistical evaluation of CPP reassessment
Even though reassessment may affect the validity of the assessment results, the CPP test-retest reliability studies on a homogeneous sample of n = 87 and heterogeneous samples of n = 2724 and n = 475, have indicated test-retest Gower similarity indices of around 0.7 to 0.9 for the cognitive styles, processing competencies and level of work results. These reliability studies are reported on in more depth in the CPP Technical Manual. To read up more on the evidence-based research on the CPP, please take a look at Cognadev’s Technical Report Series.