Page 1 of 12 · Technical sample · Hiring Fit
Advanced Learning Academy LLC · Real World Careers
This file is Hiring Fit, freeze 2026.08-B-keybalance-v2. Item counts are executive reasoning 9, quantitative 9, verbal 8, visual pattern 8, workplace judgment 8, and procedural sequencing 8. It is not Career Fit form 2026.08-C. That form uses quantitative 8 and workplace judgment 9. The federal office file is the one-page sample at /sample-federal/.
Keep people longer with better job fits for the way they think. This is the file a hirer keeps: print it, download the HTML, or open it in our database by Report ID. We never store names.
Page 2 of 12 · White paper basis
Instrument
Hiring Fit is a 50-item timed battery of work-relevant tasks. It is not a personality quiz and it is not labeled as IQ. Each item is a behavioral work problem: prioritize, compute, hold a rule, see a pattern, judge a workplace case, or sequence a procedure. That design sits in the same family as cognitive work samples used in personnel selection for a century.
The scoring lock is published. Correct answer = 2.0 accuracy points. Speed bonus = 0.2 if the item is correct and fast (threshold in the bank). Maximum composite = 110 (100 accuracy + 10 speed). Six domains: Executive reasoning (9 items, 18 accuracy points), Quantitative and spatial (9 / 18), Verbal and working memory (8 / 16), Visual pattern (8 / 16), Workplace social judgment (8 / 16), Procedural sequencing (8 / 16). Current freeze: 2026.08-B-keybalance-v2. These six counts are this Hiring Fit file. Federal Fit uses the same counts on different stems. Career Fit form 2026.08-C uses quantitative 8 and workplace judgment 9.
This is demands–abilities fit: we measure how the person solves work, then map the profile onto occupational demands (O*NET-aligned catalog and the locked domain–career map). Person–job fit of this type is associated with higher satisfaction, commitment, and performance, and lower withdrawal and quit intent in meta-analysis (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Cognitive work-relevant performance remains among the strongest predictors of later job performance in the Schmidt–Hunter tradition (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), with modern re-analysis supporting meaningful prediction under more conservative range-restriction assumptions (Sackett, Zhang, Berry, & Lievens, 2022).
Use: decision support. Combine with structured interviews and job analysis. Structured interviews outperform unstructured ones (McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994). Schmidt and Hunter (1998) showed that pairing general mental ability with a second strong method raises composite validity (classic combinations often cited near r ≈ .63–.65). Real World Careers is that first structured input — not the hire stamp.
Scoring lock: methodology page. White paper: /whitepaper. Research library: /proof/research-evidence/
Page 3 of 12 · What the literature actually says
Validity (r) is not a success percentage. Do not read “r ≈ .51” as “51% accurate.” It is the association, across many studies, between scores and later job performance after the corrections those papers describe.
| Finding | What it means for this report | Source |
|---|---|---|
| GMA operational validity around r ≈ .51 for medium-complexity jobs | Work-relevant problem-solving is among the strongest single predictors of performance | Schmidt & Hunter (1998), Psychological Bulletin |
| Validity often higher as job complexity rises | Use the profile more heavily for professional / technical seats | Schmidt & Hunter tradition; Hunter & Hunter (1984) |
| Conservative re-analysis lowers some classic coefficients, still supports ability measures | We do not sell inflated r. We sell a structured work sample plus fit map | Sackett et al. (2022), JAP |
| Person–job fit: 172 studies, 836 effect sizes — better attitudes, less withdrawal | Matching how people think to the job they will do is the keep mechanism | Kristof-Brown et al. (2005), Personnel Psychology |
| Structured interviews more valid than unstructured | Pages 11’s probes are the second method. Use them | McDaniel et al. (1994), JAP |
| European GMA / cognitive-ability generalization | The predictor class is not a U.S. curiosity | Salgado et al. (2003) |
| Professional standards for validation and documentation | Job analysis still required before consequential selection use | SIOP Principles (2018); Uniform Guidelines (1978) |
A literature correlation is not a retention count.
Page 4 of 12 · Question-to-construct map
Every item has a published construct, a task class, and a domain. Below is the map this employee ran. Hits and misses on pages 5–6 use this table. Stems are work problems, not trivia.
| Domain | Items | Acc. max | What the items require |
|---|---|---|---|
| Executive reasoning | 9 (Q1–Q9) | 18 | Prioritization under conflict, speed–quality tradeoffs, recovery after a blocked step, evidence vs authority, critical-path recovery, reversible choice under uncertainty, work design for hard thinking |
| Quantitative and spatial | 9 (Q10–Q18) | 18 | Multi-step arithmetic, rates, percent change, ratios, net displacement, weighted averages, unit consistency, magnitude order |
| Verbal and working memory | 8 (Q19–Q26) | 16 | Multi-part instructions, holding constraints, relational verbal reasoning, short-premise inference, definition use, contradiction, nested if-then, precise workplace wording |
| Visual pattern | 8 (Q27–Q34) | 16 | Series extension, odd-one-out in records, grid rules, dual-update series, structure class, missing piece, transformations, match-to-sample |
| Workplace judgment | 8 (Q35–Q42) | 16 | SJT: professional response, ethics, service recovery, peer conflict, inclusion, boundaries, corrective feedback, owning a miss |
| Procedural sequencing | 8 (Q43–Q50) | 16 | Correct order, prerequisites, checklist fidelity, branching, safety/prep, parallel vs serial, recovery order, finish criteria |
Item constructs from Hiring Fit public bank, freeze 2026.08-B-keybalance-v2. Domain–career families: locked map in product assets (operations, analytics, records, QA, people-facing service, SOP-heavy process work).
Page 5 of 12 · This person’s items · ER and QS
Report ID RWC-RPT-086: 42 of 50 items correct. Accuracy 84 / 100. Speed bonus 2.0 / 10. Composite 86 / 110.
| Q | Task class | Construct | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Prioritization under constraints | Time and deadline conflict | Hit |
| 2 | Tradeoff decision | Speed vs quality under a stated SLA | Hit |
| 3 | Recovery planning | Replan after a blocked step | Hit |
| 4 | Goal conflict | Short-term delivery vs longer-term development | Hit |
| 5 | Evidence-based choice | Evidence while acknowledging authority | Hit |
| 6 | Schedule recovery | Critical-path focus on a slipping plan | Hit |
| 7 | Resource vs time | Calendar time vs total effort | Miss |
| 8 | Uncertainty | Prefer reversible options | Hit |
| 9 | Work design | Blocks that support complex thinking | Hit |
Read-out: this profile protects due-today work and the reliability SLA. The miss is effort-vs-calendar — coachable. Not a reason to park the seat.
| Q | Task class | Construct | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10–13, 15, 17–18 | Arithmetic, rates, percent, ratios, averages, units, order | Numeric relations under time | Hit (7) |
| 14 | Spatial net | Net displacement after moves | Miss |
| 16 | Multi-step word | Multi-constraint numeric word problem | Miss |
Read-out: everyday workplace numbers are intact. Two misses: spatial tracking and a stacked word problem. Do not lead with a junior data-analyst seat. Pair with a numbers lead if the role is 1500-series heavy.
Page 6 of 12 · This person’s items · VW, VP, SJ, PS
Hit: instruction following, holding constraints, passage logic, definition use, contradiction, nested if-then, synonym precision. Miss: verbal analogy (Q21). Read-out: policy, tickets, and multi-condition rules are a strength. Analogical stretch items are not the peak. Target SOP-heavy desks (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005 — demands–abilities fit).
Hit: series extension, odd-one-out in records, grid rule, dual-update series, missing piece, match-to-sample. Miss: symmetry class (Q31), transformation track (Q33). Read-out: document and production patterns are usable. Abstract transform puzzles are weaker. QA / inspection is a moderate, not a lead, recommendation.
Hit: professional SJT, ethics, service recovery, peer conflict, inclusion, corrective feedback, owning a miss. Miss: professional-boundary item (Q40). Read-out: this is a high domain (88% of domain accuracy). Executive reasoning is the peak (16 / 18). Put people-problems on the desk. Coach the boundary miss in onboarding — one item, not a pattern of seven misses.
Hit: ordering, prerequisites, checklist fidelity, branching, safety/prep, recovery order, finish criteria. Miss: parallel vs serial (Q48). Read-out: procedures get finished; prep is not skipped. Teach parallel paths on day one.
Pattern in one sentence: people, process, and decisions under constraint — not a modeling seat first. That is the fit you buy.
Page 7 of 12 · Domain interpretation
Workplace judgment and executive reasoning together are the “keep” pattern: the person can run a desk with humans in it and still protect the due date (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998 — ability plus job knowledge acquisition; McDaniel et al., 1994 — structured evaluation of judgment). Verbal memory plus sequencing is the SOP / caseload pattern (locked domain map: administrative and records work; operations specialist). Quantitative and visual pattern are serviceable, not the peak — so the ranking on pages 9–10 down-weights analyst and cyber-alert seats that load those domains.
Why this predicts keep: person–job fit (demands–abilities) is negatively related to intent to leave (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Putting a high-judgment, high-procedure person into a numbers-first seat is a misfit. Putting them into operations, program support, or client success is a fit.
Page 8 of 12 · Matching method
Each catalog role carries O*NET-aligned weights on the six domains (product jobs catalog, version 2026-08-09). Fit is a weighted combination of this person’s domain percentages. Higher weight means the job demands that kind of problem-solving more. This is the same evidence-traceable chain used in the product: occupation and work activities → competencies and cognitive demands → assessment constructs → scores → interpretation (FAQ library; Holland 1997 for interest-structure context; O*NET as the occupational spine).
Domain percents in the ranker: ER 89, SJ 88, VW 88, PS 88, VP 75, QS 78. Composite 86 / 110 is not the match percent. Accuracy points are 2.0 per correct item (7 of 9 quantitative = 14 / 18; 7 of 8 judgment = 14 / 16).
| Role (catalog) | O*NET | Heaviest weights | Fit index |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operations Coordinator | 43-5061 | Procedural 1.4 · Executive 1.3 · Social 1.2 | 86 |
| Project Coordinator | 13-1082 | Executive 1.4 · Social 1.3 · Procedural 1.3 | 86 |
| Training Specialist | 13-1151 | Verbal 1.5 · Social 1.4 · Executive 1.2 | 86 |
| Healthcare Administrative Assistant | 43-6013 | Social 1.4 · Verbal 1.3 · Procedural 1.3 | 85 |
| Customer Success Specialist | 41-3091 | Social 1.5 · Verbal 1.4 | 85 |
| IT Support Specialist | 15-1232 | Procedural 1.3 · Executive / Verbal / Pattern 1.2 | 84 |
| Quality Assurance Technician | 19-4099 | Procedural 1.5 · Pattern 1.3 · Quantitative 1.2 | 81 |
| Junior Data Analyst | 15-2051 | Quantitative 1.5 · Pattern 1.4 | 79 |
| Bookkeeping Associate | 43-3031 | Quantitative 1.5 · Procedural 1.4 | 79 |
| Cybersecurity Analyst (entry) | 15-1212 | Pattern 1.4 · Quantitative / Executive / Procedural 1.3 | 82 |
Fit at a glance
Fit index = 100 × Σ(domain% × weight) / Σ(weights), rounded. O*NET-aligned ranking, not a classification action.
Page 9 of 12 · Best job-fit recommendations
These are the best fits for how this profile thinks. Each line is a recommendation you can brief, with the research family that supports using a structured profile this way.
Manager action this week: pick two of the six, write the job’s must-have tasks, and run the three structured probes on page 11 against those tasks. That is GMA-class signal plus structured interview — the combination Schmidt and Hunter (1998) treated as a high-utility pairing.
Page 10 of 12 · Secondary fits and do-not-lead
This is the tangible value of the report: not a gold star, and not a placement rule. Put the work profile in front of the job.
Holland (1997) informs interest-structure context for exploration; this instrument leads with ability-to-demand fit, not RIASEC scores. O*NET codes are exploration and ranking, not a classification determination.
Page 11 of 12 · Federal families and interview protocol
Federal Fit is the same 50-item science with occupational-family copy. This sample maps Report ID RWC-RPT-086 to families for exploration and workforce development.
| Family | Why this profile | How to use this week |
|---|---|---|
| 0300 General Administration | Sequencing, judgment, verbal memory | Program support, correspondence, caseload desks |
| 0343 Management and Program Analysis | Executive reasoning under constraint | Process maps, briefings, option memos — with a numbers partner |
| 1101 General Business and Industry | People-plus-process | Vendor coordination, customer-facing ops |
| 0303 Miscellaneous Clerk and Assistant | Checklist fidelity, finish criteria | High-volume correct process, not policy invention |
| Later, not first: 1500-series math-heavy | QS 78% (7 of 9) | Do not lead. Pair if the person later builds the skill |
Score the interview on a shared rubric. McDaniel et al. (1994): structured interviews beat unstructured. Schmidt & Hunter (1998): GMA-class signal plus a second strong method is the high-utility pair. SIOP (2018) and the Uniform Guidelines (1978): document job relatedness. Human judgment stays in charge. Federal Fit does not determine eligibility, grade, clearance, or referral.
Page 12 of 12 · Case context, references, close
Keep the work profile in front of the job.
Walk it with TA, the hiring manager, or the CHCO. Then buy seats and run a live cohort.
Advanced Learning Academy LLC. (2026). Real World Careers: work-relevant assessment and person–job mapping (technical white paper). Carmel, IN. https://realworldcareers.com/whitepaper
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 599–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.599
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040–2068. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994
Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C., de Fruyt, F., & Rolland, J. P. (2003). International validity generalization of GMA and cognitive abilities: A European Community meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 56, 573–605.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel selection: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2018). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (5th ed.).
U.S. Department of Labor / Employment and Training Administration. O*NET occupational information. https://www.onetcenter.org/
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al. (1978). Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. 29 C.F.R. Part 1607.
Sample employee is labeled as a sample. Citations describe the scientific class of methods. They are not Real World Careers customer r statistics. Composite 86 / 110 is this sample’s score, not a population norm table. Human judgment required.