Since everyone has strengths and weaknesses, special caution must be exercised to view this report as a whole. Be careful not to overemphasize specific statements, but rather consider this person's overall suitability for a particular position in your organizational environment.

To minimize chances of erroneous decisions, you should combine the contents of this report with information from other sources (for example; interview impressions, references, work experience, job competence, work habits, personal background, etc.). Occasionally, you may encounter a statement that surprises you. Information from these other sources should help to determine whether the statement is more reflective of important work behaviors or of attributes not important to, or readily observable on, the job.

Over time, people and organizations change. If several years have passed since the date of this report, its findings must be carefully weighed and modified by new information. Remember, this person was evaluated when she was at a particular age, stage of development, level of experience, etc. With the passage of time, the characteristics measured by ASSESS may have changed.

• The results are based on the candidate's self-perceptions and may be influenced by her favorable or unfavorable self-image. Others may see her differently than she sees herself.

• We have compared her raw scores on the ability tests and the personality profiles to a professional norm group (people who work in jobs which, for the most part, require education or training beyond the high school level) to make the statements and suggestions you will find in this report. It may be useful to think "Compared to most professionals" as you read each.

• The report does not consider her background, training, technical skills or experience. Therefore, the results do not measure her personal effectiveness nor the quality of her performance; rather, they describe abilities and characteristics that (along with these other factors) may influence her job performance.

• Many of the characteristics described in this report could be assets in some circumstances and liabilities in others. For maximum benefit, her results should be considered in the context of a particular job or work environment.

• The profile is a quick summary that will allow you to see large differences from one dimension to the next. Do not pay much attention to small differences.

• High scores are not necessarily good; low scores are not necessarily bad. Read the entire report for an in-depth interpretation.

• The small darkened rectangles indicate the candidate's percentile scores compared to professional norms. A percentile score of 60, for example, indicates she scored higher than 60% of the people in the professional norm group and lower than 40% of the people in the norm group.

• The shaded bars indicate the 25th to 75th percentile range of another comparison group. This "template" is an indication of how most people in the comparison group scored. The comparison group used for this report is listed at the top of the ASSESS graphic profile.

• (Note: The Graphic Profile is printed separately from this report.)

• She has a solid ability to reason through abstract, nonverbal information and to solve problems in new situations.
  

• She is self-reliant and is probably comfortable using her own judgment and assuming responsibility for her actions.
  

• She should be comfortable in most social situations.
  

• She is likely to be assertive and enjoy influencing others.
  

• Her ability to critically analyze complex, multifaceted written information may be somewhat limited.
  

• She appears to be impulsive and likely to make decisions too quickly.
  

• She appears to be a somewhat subjective thinker who may sometimes let her feelings influence her judgment.
  

• Her drive and energy level appear to be lower than average.
  

• She may be more "talk" than "do."
  

• She may be somewhat sensitive or touchy when criticized.
  

• She may show a temper.
  

• She may be aggressive, competitive or disagreeable in her dealings with others.
  

• Her attitudes toward people appear to be negative. She is probably cautious and slow to trust people.
  

• She appears to be detail-oriented.
  

The following results are based on the candidate's performance on standardized ability tests. They are presented as percentile comparisons to professional norms (people who, for the most part, have an education at or beyond the college undergraduate level) and to general population norms (people who, for the most part, have a high school education). Test scores have been plotted on the profile chart (see the diamond shaped marks) using professional norms. However, since people in the professional group tend to score much higher on the ability tests than the average person in the general population, it is often beneficial to also see the candidate's scores compared to general population norms.

With few exceptions, if this person is being considered for a position requiring a college degree, you should pay most attention to the professional norm group comparisons. However, if she has limited formal education or if a college degree is not required, the general population comparisons may be more appropriate.

Regardless, her results on the intellectual ability tests are only a partial indication of her ability to be successful at a job. Other factors such as education, technical training, job-related experience, personal accomplishments and character are different, but equally important, indicators of potential future success.

Scores were available for the following ability tests:

 

• Compared to GENERAL POPULATION norms, her score on the Thurstone is HIGH AVERAGE (60th to 74th percentile).
  

• Compared to PROFESSIONAL norms, her score on the Thurstone is LOW AVERAGE (25th to 39th percentile).
  

• While she should be able to reason through verbal and quantitative information to solve problems as quickly or more quickly than the average person, she may be somewhat slower or less skilled than the typical professional.
  

• Compared to GENERAL POPULATION norms, her score on the Watson-Glaser is HIGH AVERAGE (60th to 74th percentile).
  

• Compared to PROFESSIONAL norms, her score on the Watson-Glaser is BELOW AVERAGE (10th to 24th percentile).
  

• While her critical thinking abilities appear to be as good as or better than those of the average person, they may be lower than those of the typical professional. She may have difficulty understanding complex written problems or evaluating the merits of interpretations of the information presented in order to come to sound conclusions.
  

• Compared to GENERAL POPULATION norms, her score on the Progressive Matrices is WELL ABOVE AVERAGE (90th to 99th percentile).
  

• Compared to PROFESSIONAL norms, her score on the Progressive Matrices is HIGH AVERAGE (60th to 74th percentile).
  

• She should have little difficulty solving problems that involve complex, abstract information. She should also be quick to grasp new ideas and solve problems that are outside her usual experience.
  

Within the range of her intellectual skills, she shows an average tendency to probe into issues or problems. When she disciplines herself, she may be capable of insightful and reflective thought; however, she can be impulsive. She may need to be encouraged to be more patient and disciplined in her decision making, and to deal with information or problems in a more thorough manner.

Apparently much less cautious and reserved than the typical professional, she is likely to make decisions and adopt courses of action without excessive deliberation. At her best, she probably will not waste effort on the evaluation of simple, straightforward decisions. At her worst, she may be undisciplined in her approach to complex problems or decisions that have serious consequences. She may be impulsive in selecting easy or first-available solutions, even in those situations that would be better addressed with more measured judgment. She may take unnecessary risks.

While she appears to be realistic in her outlook, the results suggest that she is more subjective than objective in how she reacts to situations. That is, she appears prone to evaluating information from a personal perspective and may have difficulty disciplining her feelings. Consequently, she may allow feelings to influence her judgment. Her decisions are probably most effective when she can rely on someone else's judgment of the facts to compensate for her tendency toward subjectivity.

Her results suggest that she is as systematic and organized in her thinking as the typical professional.

Since her thoughtful and reflective thinking style is not balanced with objectivity, the usefulness of her solutions to problems may be low. She may be best suited for a position in which she can follow well-developed rules and strategies or rely on the judgment of an experienced superior.

She appears to have low drive and energy. She may be a spurt worker or someone who works more slowly and less energetically than most professionals. She probably does better when her work is externally paced.

Apparently much more thinking-oriented than action-oriented, she may be better suited to a position in which it is legitimate to emphasize thinking over doing and in which there is little pressure to act quickly.

She appears to be strongly self-reliant and to have an average need to be free of control. She is probably the type of person who assumes responsibility, takes initiative and handles things on her own, yet she does not mind working within the rules and policies of the organization.

She shows an average ability to handle pressure and frustration; she should recover from setbacks with average speed.

She expressed a moderately high need for personal attention and feedback; she is likely to be motivated by recognition but not excessively concerned about it.

She seems to enjoy personal involvement in activities calling for exactness and precision.

She describes herself as outgoing and social. She should be comfortable meeting people and probably prefers jobs with high levels of social interaction rather than working alone.

Apparently highly assertive as well as socially outgoing, she is likely to be an initiator of personal interactions. She should be able to control most encounters and should make a strong first impression in most situations.

She is likely to state her attitudes and opinions freely. This may occasionally result in unnecessary conflict.

Although she appears to have some tendency to analyze people and their motivations, her perspective is likely to be negative. Her assessments of others may be overly critical and faultfinding.

She describes herself as being less friendly and agreeable than many professionals and, in general, does not appear to worry about whether she pleases people or is liked by them. Without proper self-control, she may sometimes be unpleasant and disagreeable. She also appears to be a competitive person who enjoys winning. If not moderated or controlled, this competitiveness may carry over into aggressive, me-first behavior.

She appears to have a capacity for displaying anger or a temper, and it may sometimes show.

She presents herself to be as positive in her outlook as most professionals, but less reserved or controlled than is typical. She will tend to show her feelings and be easy for others to read.

She is likely to be more sensitive to criticism than many professionals. She may tend to overreact to negative feedback. At these times, she may interpret it more personally than it is intended or she may respond defensively.

She appears to be about average both in her need to conform to conventional or traditional behavior codes and in her wish that others conform.

She appears to very much enjoy dealing with people in a directive or persuasive manner and probably seeks opportunities to influence or manage others. Her style is likely to be strong, forceful and assertive.

In her dealings with others, she should be able to use the following tools, techniques and styles:

• Personal power
  
• Common sense
  

Her dealings with people could be adversely affected by the following:

• Aggressiveness or excessive competitiveness
  
• Sensitivity to criticism
  
• Low concern for people
  
• Immaturity or speaking before she thinks
  
• Suspiciousness of others
  
• Uncooperativeness and disagreeableness
  

  
  

This person appears to have a low energy level in comparison to the typical professional. This may mean that she has some difficulty keeping up with the work pace of others or that she must "work smart" and concentrate her efforts to be effective.
 

• During the interview, ask her to describe the type of pace that she prefers in her job and in her life in general. Probe for indications of effectiveness despite a lower than average energy level or work pace.

• Ask general interview questions about work such as: "In what types of situations are you at your best?" and "In what types of situations would you like to be more effective?" Listen for answers that suggest she does not do well when she must put in long hours, complete tasks quickly, handle multiple demands under time pressure, etc.

• Pay attention to her body language during the interview. Does she appear sluggish or lethargic, exceedingly relaxed, slow moving, -- or more energetic?

  
  
   

• "How does this person compare with her peers (people in similar jobs) in her ability to complete tasks on time?"

• "How does she compare with others in similar jobs in her ability to maintain her effectiveness while working long hours?"

• "How does her overall productivity compare with that of her peers?"
  

This person appears to have a very low level of personal restraint. People who are low on this attribute can be spontaneous and, in some cases, creative; unfortunately, they also may be impulsive in their decisions and actions. They also may be extreme in their display of emotions.
 

• During the interview, attempt to assess her ability to think before she speaks or to show restraint in her actions. Ask her to describe what she does when she gets angry.

• Ask her to describe how she makes important decisions. Listen for indications of wisdom and maturity in her decision-making process. Probe for indications of composure under stress or time deadlines (for example, forcing herself to think things through or "sleep on it" before making a decision).

• If the candidate is young or has a limited job history, you may be able to assess her maturity by asking questions about how she selected the jobs she has had or how she decided to apply for this job. Also, if she went to college, ask her how she chose her college major or how she selected the college she attended. Listen for maturity and thoughtfulness in her selection and decision processes versus a more haphazard or spontaneous approach.
  
   

• "Compared to her peers, to what extent does this person show maturity or restraint in her actions? (For example; Does she say whatever she thinks, without much thought about the impact it may have on others, or does she seem to think before she speaks?)"

• "Does this person stick with tasks to their proper completion? How about with routine or boring tasks? Is this person easily distracted?"

• "How well does she control the expression of her emotions? (For example; Does she lose her composure easily or does she tend to stay calm in difficult situations?)"
  

This person scored low on the measure of objectivity. Nonobjective people sometimes have a self-centered perspective in how they evaluate information and tend to make decisions based on personal beliefs or attitudes. Also, they can be unnecessarily sensitive to criticism; however, some people with this profile have learned to control their sensitivity in most circumstances.
 

• During the interview, attempt to assess this person's ability to separate herself from situations and accurately assess facts. Ask her to describe confrontations or differences of opinion with others.

• Ask her to discuss performance reviews with previous bosses. Probe for good and not-so-good reviews. Listen for her reaction to negative feedback. Does she attempt to take an objective view by showing insight about her contribution to the problem, or does she describe the situation in terms of "personality conflicts?"
  
   

• "How does this person compare with her peers in her ability to put her personal feelings aside and make objective decisions? How about dealing with other people in a fair-minded, objective manner?"

• "How does this person respond to constructive criticism?" (Probe: "Would you describe her as thin-skinned or thick-skinned?")

This person scores somewhat low on the measure of trust in other people. People who score low on this measure can be critical or unnecessarily suspicious of others.
 

• During the interview, ask her to describe her general style in managing people. Listen for responses that suggest she is excessively critical of others, she overmanages, or she is extremely wary of others.

• Ask her to describe the problems American business is facing today. Responses that stress unmotivated people, people who are only out for themselves, people who do not care, etc. may suggest an unnecessarily negative view towards people in general.

• Ask her if she trusts others or if she tends to be a little suspicious, and why.

• Keep in mind that a recent traumatic event such as a burglary of her home, a messy divorce, or the loss of her job may have had a temporary negative effect on her perspective. If so, her outlook may improve over time.
  
   

• "How would most people with whom this person worked describe her?"

• "Compared to other people in similar positions (her peers), how would you describe this person's ability to get along with others and to maintain cooperative work relationships?"

• "In evaluating the work of other people, was she too critical, too lenient, or generally on track?"

This person scores somewhat low on the measure of friendliness or agreeableness. People who score low on this measure are sometimes quick to confront others or find it very easy and natural to respond to situations in a competitive fashion. If they do not moderate their competitive style, they can be seen as unnecessarily disagreeable and difficult.
 

• During the interview, attempt to assess this person's ability to get along with others and maintain reasonably amicable work relationships.

• Ask her to describe those situations where it is very important for her to win. Then ask her to describe those situations where she works toward compromise and a "win-win" outcome. It may be helpful to ask for specific examples.

• Ask her to describe a team of which she has been a member. How did she accomplish her goals within the team? How did other team members react to her? Ask her to describe interactions with specific team members. Try to determine her attitudes and general feelings about them.

• Ask her to describe her general style in dealing with people. Listen for responses that suggest friendliness, agreeableness and a concern for getting along with others versus responses that imply excessive competitiveness or a "me first" style.
  
   

• "Compared to her peers (other people in similar positions), how would you describe this person's ability to get along with people in a pleasant manner?"

• "How would you describe her ability to work with others in a cooperative rather than competitive manner?"

• "Compared to other people in similar positions, would you say she has a notably strong need to win or is she willing to work with others toward 'win-win' outcomes?"

• "In general, how would you describe her style in dealing with people?"

This person's results suggest that she may be aggressive and competitive in her dealings with others. While this could be an advantage, particularly in some sales jobs, people with this profile may have difficulty working cooperatively with others. At times, they may be overly unpleasant and domineering.
 

• During the interview, ask her to describe her work relationships and listen for responses that suggest an overbearing or excessively forceful style when dealing with others.

• Ask her to describe those individuals with whom she works most effectively and those individuals with whom she finds it difficult to work. Listen for responses that suggest intolerance or excessive aggressiveness toward others.
  
   

• "How does this person compare to her peers (people in similar jobs) in her ability to be appropriately assertive while not being domineering or aggressive?"

• "In most of her dealings with people, would you say she is too forceful, not forceful enough, or uses the right amount of personal power?"

• "How does this person wear on people over the longer term? Does she tend to make a strong first impression, but then wear thin on people or does she tend to be able to maintain pleasant, amicable, 'win-win' types of relationships over the long term?"

This person scores somewhat low on the measure of critical thinking ability. People often develop critical thinking abilities as a result of college studies, but some people who have college backgrounds can still have poor skills (they have just never learned to think critically). A low score suggests poor critical thinking skills; however, strong abilities in other areas can contribute to an individual being an effective problem-solver in her work.
 

• During the interview, attempt to assess whether her test performance is consistent with other indicators of intellectual capacity (for example grades in school).

• Ask her to describe the types of problems she enjoys solving versus those she finds difficult to handle. Listen for responses that suggest she may not do well in situations that require her to logically sort through complex verbal or written information.

• Ask her to describe what she feels are her major strengths and weaknesses in solving problems. In what types of situations is she at her best, and in what types of situations is she not as effective?
  
   

• "Compared to her peers (other people in similar positions), how would you describe this person's ability to critically evaluate complex information and draw conclusions which are accurate?"

• "Would you say that this person could comprehend complex information as well as most people in similar positions? Was she better? Was she worse?" (Probe for examples.)

• "In what types of problem-solving situations is (was) this person at her best, worst?" (Probe for details.)

• Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting by Stephen D. Brookfield, Jossey-Bass, 1991.

• Getting a Project Done on Time: Managing People, Time, and Results by Paul B. Williams, AMACOM, 1996

• Motivation and Goal Setting: How to Set and Achieve Goals and Inspire Others (Motivation and Goal Setting) by Jim Cairo, Career Press, 1998.

• Motivation in the Workplace: Inspiring Motivation in the Workplace by Lydia Banks, Amer Media Inc., 1997.

• The Power of Positive Criticism by Hendrie Davis Weisinger, AMACOM, 1999.

• Sharpen Your Team's Skills in People Skills by Di Kamp & Dianne Kamp, McGraw-Hill, 1998.

• Anger and Conflict in the Workplace: Spot the Signs, Avoid the Trauma by Lynne McClure, Impact Publishing, 2000.

• Why Employees Don't Do What They're Supposed to Do and What to Do About It by Ferdinand Fournies, McGraw-Hill, 1999.

• Masterful Coaching: Extraordinary Results by Impacting People and the Way They Think and Work Together by Robert Hargrove, Pfeiffer & Company, 1995.

• Leader As Coach: Strategies for Coaching & Developing Others by David B. Peterson & Mary Dee Hicks, Personnel Decisions International, 1996.

• Action Coaching: How to Leverage Individual Performance for Company Success by David L. Dotlich & Peter C. Cairo, Jossey-Bass, 1999.

• Results-Based Leadership by David Ulrich, Jack Zenger, & Norman Smallwood, Harvard Business School Press, 1999.

• Leadership: The ASTD Trainer's Sourcebook by Anne F. Coyle, McGraw-Hill, 1996.

• Coaching for Improved Work Performance by Ferdinand Fournies, McGraw-Hill, 2000.