INDIVIDUAL REPORTKATHERINE ADAMS
Report Date: 29 Aug 2016
Position: Example Position
Client/Company: ABC Company
Assessments IncludedReport Interpretation
ModuleAssessment
DateResults
Valid Until
Cognitive Ability Test (RCAT) 16 Aug 2016 16 Aug 2017
Work Reliability Scale (RWRS) R 16 Aug 2016 16 Aug 2017
Work Safety Assessment - Short Form (RWSA-SF) 16 Aug 2016 16 Aug 2017
Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) 16 Aug 2016 16 Aug 2017
Theme Park Hero (RTPH) 16 Aug 2016 16 Aug 2017
Behavioural Profile (RBP) * 16 Aug 2016 16 Aug 2017
Please note:
R Candidate has previously completed this assessment and has released their results to be considered for this position.
* This assessment does not contribute to the overall suitability presented in the Position Report or in the assessment summary section of this report.
This multi-media presentation provides a guided tour of the individual candidate report content and structure to support the interpretation of the results. Please note this presentation relates to a generic example and not the actual candidate listed above.
Notice To Report Recipient(s)
Information contained within this report is private and confidential, and is provided on the basis that its recipient(s) will use it responsibly.
Revelian's involvement in the recruitment process is limited to providing the prospective employer with information regarding the relevant
attributes of candidates as measured by Revelian assessments. It is the prospective employer who makes final selection decisions.
Suitability scores within this report are based only on the assessment scores, and on the weightings attached to those scores. Revelian
can not guarantee that the weights assigned within this report are appropriate for the position. As some assessments were completed
unsupervised by this candidate, Revelian can not guarantee that their responses are their own. Supervised testing, where possible, is
recommended in this case.
Revelian recommends that assessment information be considered along with information gained from other sources when making final
selection decisions.
REPORT INTERPRETATION AND SUPPORT
Revelian provides the following supporting resources and options to ensure appropriate interpretation of
candidate assessment reports.
Support Resources
1. Report Interpretation Modules appear throughout this report to help you interpret the information
presented. Please click on the link provided to view an online presentation providing a generic
overview of the content and structure of the report. The modules are designed to help support your
interpretation of the results and ultimate recruitment decisions.
Please click the media icon to view the Individual Candidate Report Interpretation Presentation
(https://app.revelian.com/reports/individual/).
2. eLearning Modules provide you with a comprehensive overview of each assessment, including
assessment theory, structure of the assessment, candidate experience and interpretation of results.
These training modules are accessed via the 'Learning Centre' in your Revelian Workspace. Please
revisit these modules as often as you like as an ongoing reference.
3. Psychologist Support is available as needed. To arrange further consultation with a Revelian
Psychologist, please telephone 1300 137 937 (within Australia), 0800 046 9690 (within United
Kingdom) or +61 7 3552 5700 (outside Australia) during business hours. Alternatively, please
email: [email protected].
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
The following report provides information regarding Katherine Adams's results on Revelian's Cognitive Ability
Test (RCAT), Revelian's Work Safety Assessment - Short Form (RWSA-SF), Revelian's Work Reliability
Scale (RWRS), the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), Revelian's Theme Park
Hero (RTPH) and Revelian's Behavioural Profile (RBP). Katherine is currently being considered for the
position of Example Position.
Katherine's overall performance can be described by a suitability score, which takes into account her
performance across each of the assessments. In determining this suitability score, the assessments have
been weighted such that the RCAT has been weighted higher than the RWRS, RWSA-SF, MSCEIT, RTPH
and RBP.
Candidate Suitability Score: 97 out of a possible 100
Katherine's scores on the assessments can be briefly described as follows.
Level of Suitability Assessment Score
RCAT RWRS RWSA-SF MSCEIT RTPH
Overall Suitability86%
V64% 79% 82% 95%
Assessment Score
RCAT Exceeded 86% of a sample of employed adults
RWRS Exceeded 64% of a sample of employed adults
RWSA-SF Exceeded 79% of a sample of employed adults
MSCEIT Exceeded 82% of general comparison
RTPH Exceeded 95% of a sample of employed adults
RBP* Natural Style: ICD (Stimulator)Adapted Style: I
* Please note: This assessment does not contribute to the suitability score or classification presented above.
The details of other candidates applying for the position can be accessed by viewing the position report,
available by clicking here.
This report is based on the results of the RCAT, RWSA-SF, RWRS, MSCEIT, RTPH and RBP. These
assessments provide insight into Katherine's cognitive ability, safety at work, reliability, emotional intelligence,
ability to solve a series of game based puzzles and unique behavioural style. Other qualities relevant to
Katherine's suitability for the role may be best understood using additional selection methods, such as
additional psychological assessment, interviews and reference checks. In making a final selection decision,
Revelian recommends that all available information about the candidate be considered.
The remainder of this report provides further information regarding Katherine's assessment results.
REVELIAN COGNITIVE ABILITY TEST
REPORT INTERPRETATION
For further details regarding the interpretation of the results presented below, please view the following online
Report Interpretation presentation. This learning module explains how to interpret this specific section of the
report and extract additional meaning from the results presented.
Please click the media icon to view the Revelian Cognitive Ability Report Interpretation Presentation(https://app.revelian.com/reports/ocat/).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The RCAT was used because of the compelling body of research that has established that measures of
general cognitive ability are the most powerful predictors of how a candidate will perform overall at work. As
an indication of this power, recent research has found that the addition of cognitive ability assessments to an
existing selection procedure based on job interviews alone increased the ability to predict future work
performance by 24%.
Cognitive ability tests work by "sampling" abilities that are of key importance to effective work performance.
Such abilities include the ability to:
• Acquire information,
• Retain information,
• Organise information, and
• Apply information.
Candidates assessed to have higher levels of these information-processing abilities are more likely to:
• Develop a greater knowledge of the job and develop such knowledge more rapidly,
• Make effective decisions,
• Successfully reason and solve problems, and
• Respond appropriately to new or complex situations.
A candidate's level of cognitive ability therefore represents a very important piece of information to consider
for those responsible for making decisions regarding personnel selection.
ANALYSIS
After Katherine completed the RCAT, her test score was calculated by adding the number of correct
responses that she provided to the various types of test questions. This single score therefore reflects her
overall performance on the test.
On its own however, a test score does not provide a meaningful indication of a candidate's level of cognitive
ability. For this reason, Katherine's score was compared with those of a sample of adults employed in a broad
cross-section of mainly professional positions. This comparison group was the most appropriate to the
position of those available.
To convey how well Katherine performed on the test relative to the comparison group, her score is described
in a number of ways. Firstly, Katherine's score was assessed in terms of the percentage or proportion of the
comparison group that it exceeded. Additionally, Katherine's score was given a classification to describe the
range in which it fell. As is shown below, these classifications represent different parts of the "normal" curve
that is produced when the scores of large groups of people are plotted.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
As a result of completing the RCAT, Katherine's level of cognitive ability has been assessed and is able to be
examined in relation to the comparison group. Table 1 summarises Katherine's test performance.
Table 1 - Katherine Adams's Cognitive Ability Test Performance Relative to The Comparison Group
RCAT Score Level of Overall Cognitive Ability Comparison Score
Employed Adults
28 VAbove Average
(86%)
V Verification testing has confirmed score
V Verification testing has resulted in a score decrease
NV Test score is NOT verified
As Table 1 shows, Katherine performed very well in relation to the comparison group. Specifically, she
achieved a score that was higher than 86% of those obtained by the sample of employed adults and fell
within the Above Average range. Katherine's very favourable performance in relation to this comparison
group indicates that in terms of cognitive ability, she would be well suited for the position of Example Position.
SCORE VERIFICATION
Katherine was initially tested remotely under unsupervised conditions, and was re-tested for verification
purposes under supervised conditions on 16 August 2016. This is indicated by the "V" that appears beside
the candidate's score in Table 1 of this report. The verification test included different questions, which were
matched in format and difficulty to the questions in the original test that the candidate completed. This
process of retesting is used to confirm the validity of the candidate's original test scores. Katherine's original
test score was confirmed when retested, as indicated in Table 2. Her original score has therefore been
verified and retained in this report.
Table 2 - RCAT Score Verification.
Candidate Name Score Status
Katherine Adams Score Confirmed
TEST TAKING BEHAVIOUR FOR KATHERINE
The following information relates to the test taking behaviour from Katherine's original assessment sitting.
The RCAT includes verbal, numerical and abstract questions, each of which assesses the candidate's overall
level of cognitive ability. Of the total number of questions answered correctly by Katherine, 33% were verbal,
33% were numerical, and 33% were abstract. Of the total number of questions attempted, 33% were verbal,
33% were numerical, and 33% were abstract. On average Katherine spent 10 seconds answering each
question.
A candidate's overall level of cognitive ability, as shown in Table 1, is the best predictor of subsequent job
performance. As such, recruitment decisions should be based on the candidate's overall percentile score,
rather than their performance on the specific question types. It is also important to note that scores on the
verbal, numerical and abstract questions reflect an ability to acquire, process and utilise these types of
information, rather than any knowledge, skill or experience in these areas.
Important Considerations
Although cognitive ability tests are accurate, a candidate's results may be influenced by such things as the
environment in which the test was taken and their comfort with the testing process. Therefore, the candidate's test
score should be considered as an approximation of their level of cognitive ability.
Finally, it is important to note that this assessment requires a year 10 level of Australian English. The results of
candidates who do not possess a year 10 level of Australian English may be adversely affected by their English
proficiency. In such cases, the candidate's score will reflect a combination of their English skills and cognitive ability,
and will not provide an accurate approximation of their level of cognitive ability.
REVELIAN WORK RELIABILITY SCALE
REPORT INTERPRETATION
For further details regarding the interpretation of the results presented below, please view the following online
Report Interpretation presentation. This learning module explains how to interpret this specific section of the
report and extract additional meaning from the results presented.
Please click the media icon to view the Revelian Work Reliability Scale Report Interpretation Presentation (https://app.revelian.com/reports/owrs/).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The RWRS assesses attitudes towards theft and dishonesty ranging from lenient or accepting to strict or
severe. Previous research has demonstrated a relationship between these attitudes and counterproductive
workplace behaviours such as theft, absenteeism and property damage. Specifically, employees with stricter
attitudes are more reliable, and tend to engage in less counterproductive behaviour.
The RWRS also assesses aspects of candidates' response patterns to ensure the accuracy of the resulting
work reliability score and its appropriate interpretation. The extent to which Katherine understood the
questions that were asked of her and how carefully she completed the measure are indicated by her score on
the Consistency scale. The extent to which Katherine presented herself in an overly positive fashion is
assessed by the Positive Self Presentation scale. A response style that is too positive can indicate that
undesirable attitudes or tendencies relevant to the assessment have been suppressed by the candidate.
ANALYSIS
Katherine's responses on the Consistency and Positive Self Presentation scales indicate that she understood
what was being asked of her and answered in an open and candid manner. As a result, confidence can be
placed in the accurate and appropriate interpretation of her resulting work reliability score.
Table 3 - Validity Checks
Scale Rating
Consistency Valid
Positive Self Presentation Valid
After Katherine completed the RWRS, her work reliability score was calculated from the various responses
she provided to the assessment questions. A single score was derived from these responses and reflects her
overall rating on this assessment. This score was then compared with scores from a selected group of
people. The group selected for comparison was the most appropriate to the position of those available.
The group used for comparison was:
A sample of Employed Adults
This comparison provides insight into the candidate's level of work reliability by contrasting it with those of
people employed in a broad cross-section of positions.
Katherine's score is described in terms of the percentage of the comparison group that it exceeds. This
percentage score was then given a classification from Far Below Average to Far Above Average. As is shown
below, these classifications represent different parts of the normal curve that is produced when the scores of
large groups of people are plotted.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
Table 4 - Candidate's Test Result Relative to the Comparison Group
Level of Reliability Comparison Score
Employed Adults
Work Reliability Score Average(64%)
As a result of completing the RWRS, Katherine's work attitudes have been assessed and are able to be
examined. As displayed in Table 4 above, Katherine achieved a score that exceeded 64% of other scores
within the Employed Adults group. This placed her within the Average range.
As discussed previously, strong research evidence has demonstrated the link between individual work-
related attitudes and subsequent employee behaviour. Katherine's score on this assessment, when
compared to the attitudes of other workers, highlights an average risk of counterproductive behaviour in the
workplace.
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Should Katherine's application for the position of Example Position be considered further, it is advisable that
these results be used as a means to promote discussion with her prior to making a selection decision. For
example, where a work reliability score is low, such discussions have the potential to reveal additional
induction content, supervision or on-the-job training requirements for that candidate.
With regard to these discussions, Katherine's responses suggest that some specific topics may need to be
investigated. A suggested positioning statement and recommended interview questions are provided below to
help guide this discussion.
Interview Question Positioning Statement
As part of the recruitment process you completed the Revelian Work Reliability Scale. This assessment asked you to indicate your attitudes and opinions toward a variety of situations related to employee honesty and reliability. The following questions are derived from your responses to this assessment.
Scale Recommended Interview Questions
RELIABILITY In what situations do you think it's appropriate for an employee to deceive their employer?
What things do you believe people are occasionally tempted to take, without permission, from their workplace?
Important Considerations
A measure of work reliability can provide a useful indication of the type of behaviours an employee will exhibit within
their place of work. However, other factors will also contribute to an employee's conduct and productivity.
Appropriate work demands, a safe working environment, adequate supervision and resources are all important in
ensuring an employee performs at their optimal level. The particular job characteristics and working environment of
the position of Example Position therefore must be considered in addition to Katherine's assessment results.
REVELIAN WORK SAFETY ASSESSMENT - SHORT FORM
REPORT INTERPRETATION
For further details regarding the interpretation of the results presented below, please view the following online
Report Interpretation presentation. This learning module explains how to interpret this specific section of the
report and extract additional meaning from the results presented.
Please click the media icon to view the Revelian Work Safety Assessment - Short Form Report Interpretation Presentation (https://app.revelian.com/reports/owsasf/).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The RWSA-SF assesses an employee's attitudes towards a number of factors relevant to safety at work.
These factors include taking personal responsibility for safety, avoiding risks, and coping with stress. Based
on these factors, the RWSA-SF provides a reliable indication of the likelihood that a candidate will be
involved in accidents or cause injury to themselves or others while at work. Selecting candidates who score
favourably will assist in reducing the costs of unsafe work behaviour, such as injury, employee absenteeism,
compensation claims and property damage.
The RWSA-SF also assesses aspects of candidates' response patterns to ensure the accuracy of the
resulting work safety score and its appropriate interpretation. The extent to which Katherine understood the
questions that were asked of her and how carefully she completed the measure are indicated by her score on
the Consistency scale. The extent to which Katherine presented herself in an overly positive fashion is
assessed by the Positive Self Presentation scale. A response style that is too positive can indicate that
undesirable attitudes or tendencies relevant to the assessment have been suppressed by the candidate.
ANALYSIS
Katherine's responses on the Consistency and Positive Self Presentation scales indicate that she understood
what was being asked of her and answered in an open and candid manner. As a result, confidence can be
placed in the accurate and appropriate interpretation of her resulting work safety score.
Table 5 - Validity Checks
Scale Rating
Consistency Valid
Positive Self Presentation Valid
After Katherine completed the RWSA-SF, her work safety score was calculated from the various responses
she provided to the assessment questions. A single score was derived from these responses and reflects her
overall rating on this assessment. This score was then compared with scores from a selected group of
people. The group selected for comparison was the most appropriate to the position of those available.
The group selected for analysis was:
A sample of Employed Adults
This comparison provides insight into the candidate's level of safety awareness by contrasting it with those of
people employed in a broad cross-section of positions.
To convey how well Katherine performed on the assessment, her score is described in a number of ways.
Firstly, Katherine's score is described in terms of the percentage of the comparison group that it exceeds.
This percentage score was then given a classification from Far Below Average to Far Above Average. As is
shown below, these classifications represent different parts of the normal curve that is produced when the
scores of large groups of people are plotted.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
Table 6 - Candidate's Test Result Relative to the Comparison Group
Level of Safety Awareness Comparison Score
Employed Adults
Work Safety Score Average(79%)
As a result of completing the RWSA-SF, Katherine's level of safety awareness has been assessed and is
able to be examined. As displayed in Table 6 above, Katherine achieved a Work Safety score that exceeded
79% of other scores within the Employed Adults group. This placed her within the Average range.
As discussed previously, strong research evidence has demonstrated the link between individual work safety
attitudes and subsequent safety awareness in the workplace. Katherine's score on this assessment, when
compared to the attitudes of other workers, highlights an average risk of unsafe behaviour in the workplace.
Important Considerations
A measure of safety attitudes can provide a useful indication of the likelihood of an employee approaching their
tasks in a safe and responsible manner. However, other factors will also contribute to an employees' propensity for
safe behaviour and susceptibility to workplace accidents. An unsafe work environment (e.g. faulty machinery) and
unsafe behaviour by fellow employees (e.g. misuse of machinery) are two such factors that may also contribute.
The working environment of the position of Example Position therefore must be considered in addition to
Katherine's assessment results.
Should Katherine's application for the position of Example Position be considered further, it is advisable that these
results be used as a means to promote discussion with her prior to making a selection decision. For example,
where a safety score is low, such discussions have the potential to reveal additional induction content, supervision
or safety-related training requirements for that candidate.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE TEST (MSCEIT)
REPORT INTERPRETATION
For further details regarding the interpretation of the results presented below, please view the following online
Report Interpretation presentation. This learning module explains how to interpret this specific section of the
report and extract additional meaning from the results presented.
Please click the media icon to view the Emotional Intelligence Test Report Interpretation Presentation(https://app.revelian.com/reports/msceit/).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The MSCEIT represents an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence, which assesses an individual's
capacity to understand their own and others emotions and to use emotions to enhance thought. In particular,
emotional intelligence, as measured by the MSCEIT, measures a candidate's ability to:
• Recognise their own and others' emotions,
• Generate and use emotions in problem solving,
• Understand emotions and how emotions may change, and
• Manage their own and others' emotions.
As an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence, the MSCEIT estimates a candidate's emotional
intelligence by asking them to solve problems about emotions, or problems that require the use of emotion.
Research indicates that emotional intelligence, as measured by the MSCEIT, is a good predictor of job
performance. Individuals with high scores on the MSCEIT are better able to perceive, identify and manage
emotions in themselves and others, making them effective at managing those around them. Accordingly,
emotional intelligence is of particular importance in jobs that involve working as part of a team, customer
service, or displaying leadership behaviours.
ANALYSIS
After Katherine completed the MSCEIT, her responses were calculated to yield a Total Emotional Intelligence
score, two area scores: Experiential and Strategic Emotional Intelligence, and four branch scores: Perceiving
Emotions, Facilitating Thought, Understanding Emotions, and Managing Emotions. In addition, eight
individual task scores are also presented. Please note that when interpreting these scores, the Total
Emotional Intelligence score should be considered as most reliable while the overall profile of the candidate's
emotional intelligence should be considered by reviewing the Branch scores. Caution should be used when
reviewing the task scores presented, as this information is only intended to provide further detail regarding
Katherine's responses and should not be used for decision making purposes.
The graphic below displays the relationships between these scores.
To convey how well Katherine performed on the test her score is described in a number of ways. Firstly,
Katherine's score was compared with scores achieved by a large group of people who have also completed
this measure. Additionally, Katherine's score was given a classification to describe the range in which it fell.
As is shown below, these classifications represent different parts of the "normal" curve that is produced when
the scores of large groups of people are plotted.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
Total Score
The following table displays Katherine's Total Emotional Intelligence score.
Table 7 - Total Score
Level of Overall Emotional Intelligence
Comparison Score
General Comparison
MSCEIT Total Score Above Average
(82%)
This global score represents a convenient summary of Katherine's performance on this measure. This score
indicates Katherine's overall capacity to understand her own and others emotions and use emotions to
enhance thought.
As discussed previously, research evidence has demonstrated the link between emotional intelligence and
job performance in certain positions. Katherine's overall score on this assessment, when compared to the
general comparison group, highlights an above average level of emotional intelligence.
Area Scores
Katherine's Experiential Emotional Intelligence and Strategic Emotional Intelligence scores are displayed in
the table below.
Table 8 - Area Scores
Area Emotional Intelligence Area Scores Comparison Score
General Comparison
Experiential Above Average
(88%)
Strategic Average (66%)
The Experiential Emotional Intelligence score is derived from Katherine's performance on the Perceiving
Emotions and Facilitating Thought branches and focuses on the identification of emotion and its interaction
with thought. Strategic Emotional Intelligence is derived from Katherine's performance on the Managing
Emotions and Understanding Emotions branches and is focused on an understanding of how emotions
develop over time and how they are managed and suited to particular social situations.
Branch Scores
Katherine's branch scores are displayed in the table below.
Table 9 - Branch Scores
Branch Emotional Intelligence Branch Scores Comparison Score
General Comparison
Perceiving Emotions Far Above Average
(95%)
Facilitating Thought Average (67%)
Understanding Emotions Average (72%)
Managing Emotions Average (49%)
Perceiving Emotions
The Perceiving Emotions branch is concerned with Katherine's capacity to accurately recognise her own
emotions and the emotions of others around her. Emotional perception involves paying attention to and
accurately decoding emotional signals in facial expressions, tone of voice and artistic expression. Although
the MSCEIT measures the appraisal of emotions in others and in images, evidence suggests that such
appraisal is also related to accurate perceptions of emotions in oneself.
Facilitating Thought
The Facilitating Thought branch is focused on Katherine's ability to employ feeling to enhance cognitive
thought and, as a result, harness more effective problem-solving, reasoning, decision-making and creative
ability. Emotions can assist in prioritising tasks by identifying those tasks of greater importance. Emotions
also influence the way we think (e.g., positive thoughts are generated when one is happy). Differing emotions
therefore encourage a variety of perspectives while also fostering creative thinking.
Understanding Emotions
The Understanding Emotions branch reflects Katherine's capacity to define and label emotions and reason
with them effectively. Understanding what leads to various emotions is a critical component of emotional
intelligence as knowledge of how emotions combine and change over time is important in interactions with
others.
Managing Emotions
The Managing Emotions branch assesses Katherine's ability to manage emotions successfully. This entails
remaining open to emotional information at important times, and closed to emotions when they may not be
relevant. Managing emotions also refers to using emotions in a considered and rational manner, rather than
choosing to act without the appropriate degree of thought.
Task Scores
Katherine's performance on each task of the MSCEIT is presented in the table below. It is important to note
that task scores have much greater variability than other MSCEIT scores. Greater emphasis should therefore
be placed on interpreting a candidate's overall, area and branch scores.
Table 10 - Task Scores
Task Emotional Intelligence Task Scores Comparison Score
General Comparison
Faces Far Above Average
(99%)
Pictures Average (71%)
Facilitation Average (66%)
Sensations Average (62%)
Changes Average (72%)
Blends Average (61%)
Emotion Management Average (61%)
Emotional Relations Average (38%)
The Faces task asked Katherine to identify how a person was feeling based on their facial expression. The
Pictures task asked Katherine to indicate to what extent certain images or landscapes expressed various
emotions. Both tasks contribute to the Perceiving Emotions branch of the MSCEIT.
The Facilitation task measured Katherine's knowledge of how moods interact and support thinking and
reasoning. The Sensations task asked Katherine to compare different emotions to different sensations, such
as light, colour and temperature. Both tasks contribute to the Facilitating Thought branch of the MSCEIT.
The Changes task measured Katherine's understanding of conflicting emotions in certain situations and how
emotions transition from one situation to another (e.g., how contentment can change to joy). The Blends task
refers to Katherine's ability to connect situations with certain emotions (e.g., linking a situation involving loss
to sadness). Both tasks contribute to the Understanding Emotions branch of the MSCEIT.
The Emotion Management task asked Katherine to rate the effectiveness of certain actions in a situation
requiring the regulation of emotions. The Emotional Relations task asked Katherine to evaluate the
effectiveness of different actions in achieving an outcome involving other people. Both tasks contribute to the
Managing Emotions branch of the MSCEIT.
Supplementary Scales
Supplementary measures have also been included in the MSCEIT to provide additional information and
understanding of Katherine's results and response style. This includes the Scatter score and Positive-
Negative Bias score.
Scatter Score
The MSCEIT Scatter score provides an indication of the amount of fluctuation among a candidate's task
scores. High Scatter scores indicate large discrepancies in the results for the different tasks. Such scores
may indicate a large degree of variation in skill across different elements of emotional intelligence. Moderate
Scatter scores show a typical amount of variation in task results. Low Scatter scores indicate very consistent
scores across the tasks.
Katherine's results depict a consistency in the scores she achieved across the emotional intelligence tasks.
This is further evident when reviewing the task scores achieved by Katherine.
Table 11 - Scatter Variation
Scale Rating
Scatter Score Low
Positive-Negative Bias Score
The Positive-Negative Bias score provides an indication of a candidate's tendency to respond to pictorial
stimuli with either positive or negative emotions. Positive Bias scores indicate a more than typical tendency to
respond positively to the face and picture items. Neutral Bias scores indicate a typical amount of positive and
negative responding. Negative Bias scores indicate a more than typical amount of negative responding to the
face and picture items.
Katherine's results depict a typical amount of positive and negative responding to face and picture items
throughout the assessment. Katherine can therefore be generally expected to read emotional situations
accurately and offer a realistic and balanced appraisal of those situations.
Table 12 - Positive-Negative Tendency
Scale Rating
Positive-Negative Bias Score Neutral
Important Considerations
Emotional intelligence has demonstrated strong links with job performance across a wide array of occupations and
industries. It's greatest power however lies in predicting performance in jobs that involve working with others.
Therefore, an assessment of emotional intelligence is most relevant when recruiting for positions that involve a high
degree of team work, customer service or management of others (e.g., supervisory or leadership roles).
Scoring of the MSCEIT is based on a predominately Western sample of respondents. Caution therefore should be
taken when interpreting the scores of candidate's from emerging or non-Western nations and non-native English
backgrounds, as cultural variation can influence scores. Similar caution is recommended when interpreting the
scores of candidates with physical or intellectual impairments that may adversely impact their performance on this
test.
A candidate's effective functioning in a particular position is a product of many qualities and not a result of their level
of emotional intelligence alone. As such, the MSCEIT should not be used in isolation when making recruitment
decisions. Revelian recommends that results of other psychological assessments and selection methods (e.g.,
structured interviews) be used to supplement the results provided by the MSCEIT to ensure a fair and valid
selection outcome.
REVELIAN THEME PARK HERO
REPORT INTERPRETATION
For further details regarding the interpretation of the results presented below, please view the following online
Report Interpretation presentation. This learning module explains how to interpret this specific section of the
report and extract additional meaning from the results presented.
Please click the media icon to view the Revelian Theme Park Hero Report Interpretation Presentation(https://app.revelian.com/reports/tph/).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Revelian's Theme Park Hero (RTPH) is a game based psychometric assessment measuring abilities and
traits that are important for job performance. In this assessment candidates assume the role of a theme park
manager where they are required to oversee the operation of the park and complete a series of fun and
engaging tasks. Details on the tasks Katherine completed are provided below.
Make a Splash Balloon Blast! Short Circuits Tricky Tokens
Solve a number of puzzles of increasing difficulty while constructing a water park.
Pop balloons for charity while ignoring a variety of distractions.
Fix the circuit boards by reconstructing rotated layouts.
Quickly work out which tickets have the highest values.
Candidates who score well on RTPH are more likely to have:
• Strong mental agility to quickly learn and process new information
• The ability to focus attention on important information
• Cognitive speed to carry out tasks under time pressure
• Spatial aptitude to visualise and understand abstract relationships
A candidate's score on RTPH is therefore an important piece of information to consider when making decisions
regarding personnel selection.
ANALYSIS
After Katherine completed Theme Park Hero, her score was calculated by analysing the game play data
captured during her assessment, including metrics such as speed and accuracy in responding, efficiency in
making decisions, and prioritising and executing tasks.
A single score was derived from her game play and reflects her overall performance on the assessment. This
score was then compared with those achieved by a large group of people who have also completed this
measure.
To convey how well Katherine performed on the assessment relative to the comparison group, her score is
described in a number of ways. Firstly, Katherine's score was assessed in terms of the percentage or
proportion of the comparison group that it exceeded. Additionally, Katherine's score was given a classification
to describe the range in which it fell. As is shown below, these classifications represent different parts of the
"normal" curve that is produced when the scores of large groups of people are plotted.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
As a result of completing RTPH, Katherine's ability to solve a series of game based puzzles has been
assessed and combined into a total score. The total score is able to be examined in relation to the
comparison group. Table 13 summarises Katherine's performance.
Table 13 - Katherine's Theme Park Hero Performance Relative to The Comparison Group
Theme Park Hero Score Comparison Score
Employed Adults
Theme Park Hero ScoreFar Above Average
(95%)
As Table 1 shows, Katherine performed extremely well in relation to the comparison group. Specifically, she
achieved a score that was higher than 95% of those obtained by the employed adults group and fell within
the Far Above Average range. Katherine's favourable performance in relation to this comparison group
indicates that in terms of the abilities measured by RTPH, she has demonstrated an appropriate level of
suitability for the position.
Important Considerations
Although assessments of this nature are accurate, a candidate's results may be influenced by such things as the
environment in which the test was taken and their comfort with the testing process. Therefore, the candidate's
assessment score should be considered an approximation of their ability to solve game based puzzles and should
be considered in conjunction with other information obtained during the recruitment process.
REVELIAN BEHAVIOURAL PROFILE
REPORT INTERPRETATION
Revelian seeks to ensure that clients receive optimal benefit from the use of all report information provided.
For further details regarding the interpretation of the results presented within this report, please view the
following online Report Interpretation presentation. This learning module explains how to interpret the
different sections of this report, and extract additional meaning from the results presented.
Please click the media icon to view the Revelian Behavioural Profile Report Interpretation Presentation(https://app.revelian.com/reports/obp2/).
INTRODUCTION
Behavioural research suggests that people who understand themselves well in terms of their strengths and
weaknesses are most effective in the workplace. Behavioural assessment provides useful information relating
to a person's strengths and development areas, and thus can be used to assist people to adapt to their
environment.
The RBP analyses individual behavioural characteristics. That is, the way a person behaves, interacts, and
communicates with others. This report addresses four main behavioural styles and the unique characteristics
associated with each. The four primary behavioural styles measured by the RBP are:
Dominance: How people respond to problems and challenges Influencing: How people influence others to their point of view Steadiness: How people respond to the pace of the environment Compliance: How people respond to rules and procedures set by others
The following report is divided into two main sections:
Section A - Key Selection Considerations, which provides information relating to Katherine's behavioural
style, including an overview of her likely behaviour, the strengths she may bring to the role, and potential
development areas for her.
Section B - On the Job Considerations, which provides supplementary information relating to Katherine's
behavioural style in the areas of workplace behaviours, motivators, decision making style, and
communication style. This information may be useful during Katherine's induction into the organisation and
transition into the role.
NATURAL AND ADAPTED STYLE
The RBP also measures an individual's Natural and Adapted behavioural styles.
Natural style refers to how an individual behaves when they are most at ease, and conveys the manner in
which they would ideally approach work-related tasks. This style reflects the behaviours that are the easiest
and most comfortable for the individual.
However, individuals often need to modify their behaviour to meet the expectations of a role. How they feel
they need to adapt their behaviour is known as the 'Adapted style'.
Adapted style refers to how the individual feels they need to adjust to better cope with the requirements of
their current environment. While individuals are capable of modifying and adjusting their behaviour to meet
the demands of their surroundings, large behavioural adjustments over a long period of time are likely to
become stressful and difficult to sustain.
The information provided by the Natural style is more indicative of an individual's true behavioural preference
and identifies the basic, natural behaviour that they are likely to bring to the role. It is also worth noting that in
the recruitment context, a candidate's Adapted style reflects how they feel they need to behave in their
current (or most recent) role. For these reasons, it is recommended that greater emphasis be placed on an
individual's Natural style when considering their suitability for the position.
The information provided in this report is based on Katherine's Natural style, as measured by her responses
on the RBP. That is, how someone with Katherine's Natural style would approach the position.
SECTION A: KEY SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS
Based on Katherine's responses on the RBP, the sections below provide key information regarding her
Natural style and its application to the workplace. The information presented in this section includes a
behavioural overview, potential strengths, and suggested development areas. Use this information when
considering Katherine's suitability for the position of Example Position.
BEHAVIOURAL OVERVIEW
This section presents a general overview of Katherine's behavioural tendencies, and provides a broad
understanding of her preferred work style. That is, if left on her own, this section describes how Katherine
would choose to do the job. Please note that the information below describes the typical behaviour for
individuals with this behavioural style, without taking into account a person's ability to modify their behaviour
to fit the needs of a particular situation or environment. Therefore, use the information provided below to gain
a better understanding of Katherine's natural behaviour, together with other available application information
to determine her potential suitability for the role.
Katherine can be described as:
Extroverted, active, busy, creative, sociable, innovative, eager, tolerant, carefully daring, pleasantly decisive,
people-oriented, positive, open.
Motivators for Katherine:
Katherine likes variety, varying tasks, pleasant relationships and a cheerful working atmosphere. This type of
person likes to meet new people. She usually likes being in a role that influences people and makes them
enthusiastic. She tries to test herself in a positive way. She follows rules, avoids conflicts and does not want
to find herself in very complicated nor dangerous situations.
Katherine may try to avoid:
Katherine must concentrate to be thorough and attentive to fine details, but routine work in a single location
demands even more. She likes to meet people and discuss different things, but does not like to argue nor
push others. It is easy for her to enter new circumstances, but in a crisis situation Katherine does not like to
be alone.
Ideal manager for Katherine:
This type of person needs an inspiring manager/leader who regulates her speed so that she does not lose
her motivation. The manager/leader has to ensure that she does not cross the boundaries of her task nor
head in the wrong direction. The manager/leader should not become too familiar with her because then it
would be difficult to assess her results objectively.
Katherine's communication style:
She should be very inspiring, people-oriented and positive in her communications. As she is clever and
tolerant, she handles most people-situations easily. She can present her ideas in a logical way, although she
is best in presentations that jump from one topic to another and which influence peoples' emotions. Probably
she is not as patient a listener as one could be.
Katherine's decision making style:
She creates an impression of being a stronger and more self-confident person than she is. She is willing to
be quick to find new solutions - even though that contradicts a wish to avoid mistakes and be correct.
Moreover, she is not very eager to be responsible for unpleasant decisions.
TABLE OF DESCRIPTORS
Based on Katherine's Natural style, the Table of Descriptors in Figure 1 provides a graphical representation
of her behavioural profile according to the four factors of the RBP model: Dominance, Influencing,
Steadiness, and Compliance.
The line that runs through the centre of the Table of Descriptors is the Middle line which marks the centre
point for each factor. The table is divided into six zones, with a brief definition for each of these zones
provided on the table.
The shading on the Table of Descriptors indicates Katherine's behavioural profile based on the four factors.
Interpretation should be drawn from the overall shape of the profile when all four factors are considered in
relation to one another. The strength of a factor is determined by comparing its shading to that of other
factors. For example, if a factor has higher shading above the Middle line compared to other factors, this
factor would be considered more prominent for the individual. In addition, as the shading moves further away
from the Middle line, this represents the behaviour becoming more extreme and prominent, while shading
that is close to the Middle line indicates less extreme behaviour for that factor.
Each individual also has a core factor, which indicates the behavioural characteristics that are most prevalent
when interacting with this person. The factor with the highest level of shading above the Middle line in the
Table of Descriptors is Katherine's core factor.
Katherine's behavioural profile is displayed in the Table of Descriptors in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 - Table of Descriptors
DOMINANCE INFLUENCING STEADINESS COMPLIANCE
Upper zone - indicates prominent behaviour
Upper Mid zone - indicates a tendency towards prominent behaviour
Mid zone - indicates less prominent behaviour
Mid zone - indicates less prominent behaviour
Lower Mid zone - indicates a tendency towards prominent behaviour
Lower zone - indicates prominent behaviour
Descriptors for Katherine
EnquiringInitiating
Goal-orientedWilful
AssertiveDirect
CharismaticInspiring
ExpressivePersuasiveEnergetic
Gregarious
HastyImpatient
UnstructuredEnergeticCapricious
Demonstrative
CarefulConventional
OrderlyYielding
Seeks information
The descriptors section at the bottom of each factor in the Table of Descriptors presents a list of words that
indicate the type of behaviours that are likely to be exhibited by Katherine. These words are generated based
on Katherine's unique profile.
Table 14 below provides a generic overview of each of the four factors to assist in the interpretation of
Katherine's profile.
Table 14 - The Four DISC Factors
Factor Definition Middle Line Behavioural Description
Dominance:Responding to problems and challenges
Above Active and assertive in gaining results, direct approach
Below Considered and passive approach to gaining results
Influencing:Influencing others to one's point of view
Above Verbally persuasive, social, people-oriented, outgoing
Below Reserved, cautious, introverted, matter of fact approach
Steadiness:Responding to the pace of the environment
Above Structured and organised, clearly defined boundaries
Below Freedom to operate, unstructured and unpredictable environment
Compliance:Responding to rules and procedures
Above Follows rules, aware of consequences of non-compliance
Below Establishes own rules and methods, 'do it my way' approach
VALUE TO THE ORGANISATION
This section of the report identifies the behavioural strengths Katherine is likely to bring to the job. These are
areas that don't require extra energy from Katherine and are likely to be quite natural for her. By looking at
these statements, one can identify her potential contribution to the organisation. In this way, providing the
opportunity for Katherine to use her strengths in the work environment will maximise the contribution she can
bring to the role and the organisation.
• Can be happy and spread good moods
• Can express one's idea
• Is easy to get along with
• Is open to new ideas and thoughts
• Likes to analyse and discuss
• Has a lively way of expressing one's opinion
• Wants to participate
• Recognises also other's feelings
• Follows instructions but not blindly
• Gets people in a good mood
• Does many things simultaneously
• Keeps up a positive speed
DEVELOPMENT AREAS
This section provides a list of potential development areas for Katherine without regard to a specific job.
Please note that these development areas are based on Katherine's Natural style and therefore don't take
into consideration the skills she has acquired to counter-balance these. The information provided below can
be used to formulate an action plan to facilitate Katherine's development in these areas.
• Makes conversation without making any constructive comments
• Is jumpy and not careful
• Is not direct; wants to please
• Doesn't have a long-range perspective in work
• Spends less time listening than talking
• Doesn't finish; goes to the next project
• Is overly optimistic
• Cannot be alone
• Doesn't get down to quarrelsome work
• Constantly wants something new and funny
• Spends all one's time discussing and pondering
• Lives in idealism and dreams
THE BEHAVIOURAL MAP
The Behavioural Map provides further insight into Katherine's behavioural style by plotting her Natural and
Adapted styles according to the combination of her most predominant factors. The Behavioural Map is
divided into segments which represent different combinations of the Dominance (D), Influencing (I),
Steadiness (S) and Compliance (C) factors and are each labeled with letters accordingly. The order of the
letters in each segment reflects the strength of influence, with the first letter being the most predominant. In
this way, an individual's Natural or Adapted style can be interpreted in relation to the section of the map it is
plotted in.
Interpretation of this figure should consider the interaction of the different behavioural factors, the strength of
these behaviours and the degree of flexibility depicted. More specifically, a style plotted further from the
centre of the map indicates that the individual is more strongly defined by the relative behavioural style, while
a style plotted closer to the centre of the map indicates that the individual's behaviour will reflect a
combination of several factors. That is, plotted styles that fall closer to the edge of the map in any direction
reflects more predominant and distinct characteristics, while more central styles tend to be less distinct to one
main factor and are in turn a more blended combination of behavioural attributes.
Further interpretation can be gained by comparing the position of Katherine's Natural and Adapted styles in
relation to one another as plotted on the Behavioural Map. The greater the distance between the Natural and
Adapted styles, the more she needs to modify her behaviour to meet the demands of her current or most
recent work environment.
Please use the details below to further support your interpretation of the labels on the Behavioural Map in
Figure 2 below.
Direct: Tendency to be active in the environment Indirect: Tendency to be passive in the environment Person-focus: Primarily concerned with people and relationships Task-focus: Primarily concerned with procedures and results
Figure 2 - The Behavioural Map
Katherine's Natural style: ICD (Stimulator)
Katherine's Adapted style: I
WORKING WITH OTHERS
The Behavioural Map consists of ten Team Roles that represent the role and behaviours individuals are most
likely to adopt when working in a team. The team roles include Specialist, Developer, Changer, Planner,
Influencer, Stimulator, Communicator, Participator, Supporter, and Assurer. The team role for Katherine
indicates how she would most naturally apply herself when working with others, and is determined based on
the relationship between the four behavioural factors (DISC) represented in the Table of Descriptors.
Katherine's Natural style team role: Stimulator
Natural Style Team Role
As a Stimulator, Katherine is an open and extroverted individual who thrives on interpersonal contact. She
works well with others where she can collaborate and brainstorm ideas, bringing positivity and optimism to
situations and tasks. She maintains an appropriate level of opinion and is mindful of how her actions
influence others. The Stimulator enjoys working on a variety of tasks and being included in the group's
decisions and activities. She recognises that things do not necessarily proceed as planned and so does not
always find it necessary to analyse things in detail.
SECTION B: ON THE JOB CONSIDERATIONS
The sections below provide on the job considerations relating to the preferences typically displayed by those
with similar behavioural styles to Katherine in the areas of workplace behaviour, motivation, decision making
and communication. Use this information to supplement the previous report content when considering
Katherine's suitability for the position of Example Position, during her induction into the organisation, and
transition into the role.
When considering Katherine's suitability for the role, take into account the degree to which the following
aspects of workplace behaviour, motivation, decision making, and communication are core components of
the position. That is, emphasis should only be placed on the factors that are core requirements for the
position of Example Position.
WORKPLACE BEHAVIOURS
The Workplace Behaviours section relates Katherine's natural behavioural preferences to common workplace
tasks and requirements. The information presented in this section should be used to gain an understanding of
the tasks that are likely to be natural strengths for Katherine, and those tasks that are likely to require more
energy from her.
Where Katherine's Natural style is plotted to the right and in the darker shading in Figure 3 below, the related
task is aligned with her behavioural preferences and is likely to be a natural strength of hers. Where
Katherine's Natural style is plotted to the left and in the lighter shading, the task is less aligned with her
Natural style. She would therefore most likely have to expend more energy to complete the task. A plotting
close to the centre of the continuum indicates that the related task is neither a clear natural strength nor a
task that requires more energy. Katherine would be expected to experience a moderate level of comfort when
completing this type of task.
Figure 3 - Workplace Behaviours
Consider the following in relation to the specific requirements of the role.
REQUIRES MORE ENERGY
NATURAL STRENGTH
VARIETY Having a variety of different responsibilities with limited instructions
NETWORKING Actively approaching and contacting a variety of people
PLANNING Thorough planning and working on projects until completion
THINKING Generating ideas based on facts and careful thought
ENCOURAGING Communicating with and encouraging others in a positive way
HELPING OTHERS Providing assistance and information to others
REPETITION Attention to details and working on repetitive tasks
FOLLOWING PROCEDURES
Following detailed instructions thoroughly
COMPETITION Competitive and goal-oriented approach to tasks
AUTONOMY Working autonomously with limited interaction with others
ACCURACY Producing highly accurate results by avoiding risks and mistakes
CHANGE Continuously looking for new ideas and improvements
Katherine's Natural style
MOTIVATION
Each individual has different goals and sources of motivation. This section of the report aims to highlight the
type of workplace environment that is likely to be a motivator for Katherine. This could then be used to gain
insight into possible ways in which to increase her motivation on the job.
Figure 4 below relates Katherine's Natural style to different working environments. In those workplace
environments where Katherine's Natural style is plotted to the right and in the darker shading, she is likely to
be comfortable and remain easily motivated. In those workplace environments where Katherine's Natural
style is plotted to the left and in the lighter shading, she is likely to be less comfortable and expend more
energy in remaining motivated. A plotting close to the centre of the continuum indicates that the related
workplace environment is neither a natural source of motivation, nor an environment that requires more
energy for Katherine in which to remain motivated.
Figure 4 - Motivation in Workplace Environments
Consider the following in relation to the specific requirements of the role.
REQUIRES MORE ENERGY
NATURAL STRENGTH
HIGH-RISK Remaining motivated in a risky and uncertain environment
ROUTINE Remaining motivated in a predictable and steady environment
COOPERATION Remaining motivated in a team-oriented and collaborative environment
PEOPLE CONTACT Remaining motivated when regularly interacting with and motivating others
SPECIALISING Remaining motivated when required to specialise in one area
Katherine's Natural style
In addition to the workplace environments above, Katherine is likely to be motivated by the following factors
and will respond positively if these factors are present in her environment. It may be beneficial to review
these motivators with Katherine to highlight those that are most relevant for her.
• Lively and varying relationships
• Social network
• Varying assignments or environment
• Positive experiences
• Consciously making changes
• Moving and life opening up
• Reliable whole to be part of
• Success without taking risks
• Decision making concerning people
• People-oriented behaviour
• Inspiring work environment
• Friendly people
Based on Katherine's Natural style, the following factors are likely to decrease her motivation, and she will
respond positively if these factors are limited in her work environment. It may be beneficial to review these
demotivators with Katherine to highlight those that are most relevant for her.
• Need to be thorough
• Being overlooked
• Aggressive people
• Being pressured to make decisions
• Working with pure facts
• Having to be negative with people
• Lack of variety
• New experiences being prohibited
• Working without people contacts
• Arrogant people
• Organisation where everyone is bored
• Openness disappearing
DECISION MAKING
Most people have a preference for the way in which they make decisions. This section of the report aims to
highlight the decision making approaches that are likely to be natural strengths for Katherine, and those that
are likely to require more energy from her. Use the information provided in this section to gain insight into the
ways in which Katherine is most comfortable making decisions.
Figure 5 below relates Katherine's Natural style to different decision making approaches. The decision
making approaches where Katherine's Natural style is plotted to the right and in the darker shading are likely
to be easy for her to adopt. The decision making approaches where Katherine's Natural style is plotted to the
left and in the lighter shading are likely to require more energy for her to adopt. A plotting close to the centre
of the continuum indicates that the related decision making approach is neither a clear natural strength nor
something that requires more energy for Katherine to adopt.
It may be beneficial to review Katherine's decision making preferences with her and discuss how they relate
to the requirements of the position.
Figure 5 - Approaches to Decision Making
Consider the following in relation to the specific requirements of the role.
REQUIRES MORE ENERGY
NATURAL STRENGTH
INDEPENDENT Autonomous decision making with limited supporting information
FACT-BASED Making decisions based on facts, rather than feelings or opinions
PEOPLE-BASED Making decisions that encourage and positively influence others
RULE-BASED Making decisions based on rules, instructions and guidelines
POSITIVE OUTCOME
Ensuring decisions are received favourably by others
FAST Fast decision making involving uncertainty and risk
Katherine's Natural style
COMMUNICATION
Most people have a preference for how they communicate with others, and how others communicate with
them. This section of the report aims to highlight the communication methods that are likely to be natural
strengths for Katherine, and those that are likely to require more energy from her. Suggestions for ways in
which to communicate with her to enhance interpersonal interactions are also provided.
Figure 6 below relates Katherine's Natural style to different approaches to communication. The
communication approaches where Katherine's Natural style is plotted to the right and in the darker shading
are likely to be easy for her to adopt. The communication approaches where Katherine's Natural style is
plotted to the left and in the lighter shading are likely to require more energy for her to adopt. A plotting close
to the centre of the continuum indicates that the related communication approach is neither a clear natural
strength nor something that requires more energy for Katherine to adopt.
Figure 6 - Communication Approaches
Consider the following in relation to the specific requirements of the role.
REQUIRES MORE ENERGY
NATURAL STRENGTH
DIRECT Communicating in a direct, fact-oriented manner
INSPIRING Communicating in an inspiring way to enhance the performance of others
INFLUENCING Tailoring communication to specifically suit and positively influence the behaviour of others
BALANCED Balancing active communication with active listening
CAUTIOUS Considered communication based on logic and facts
FOCUSED Communicating logically without straying from the issue
Katherine's Natural style
The following information provides suggestions for communicating with Katherine to enhance interpersonal
effectiveness. It may be beneficial to discuss these suggestions with Katherine to identify particular
communication preferences and frustrations.
When communicating with Katherine:
• Maintain a positive atmosphere
• Allow her to express herself
• Take time to chat
• Be expressive
• Be enthusiastic
• Focus on the bigger picture
When communicating with Katherine, try to avoid:
• Presenting too many specific details
• Using closed body language
• Introducing negative or unconstructive criticism
• Taking everything too seriously
• Being pessimistic
• Setting restrictions to the conversation
Important Considerations
This report describes Katherine's behavioural style, providing an indication of her likely approach to the work
environment. It does not present firm conclusions about her ability to perform in the role, and therefore should be
used in conjunction with other selection methods when considering Katherine's suitability for the position.