Page 1 of 12 · Full sample · what ONE seat produces
Advanced Learning Academy LLC · Federal Fit / Hiring Fit
This is what you get for each seat. Fifty questions. How this brain works at work. Which jobs fit. Lookup by Report ID and the Employer ID you assigned. Name on our file: none. Print it, download it, keep it.
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. Career Fit, Hiring Fit, and Federal Fit use separate stems.
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) |
RWC-specific “success percentages” are only the approved employer case: actual results averaged 58 of 60 still employed at 9 months, scaled to 100 (97 per 100 vs prior 58 per 100). Literature r is not that case. The case is not a guarantee for the next cohort.
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 the peak domain (93.8% of domain accuracy). 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. That is the 58-of-60 story, scaled to 100, in one employee.
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: SJ 94, ER 89, VW 88, PS 88, VP 75, QS 72. Composite 86 / 110 is not the match percent.
| 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, a placement rule. Put the brain where the job thinks the same way. That is how you keep 97 per 100 instead of 58 per 100 in the approved employer case (58 of 60 actual, scaled to 100).
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 72% | 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 people longer with better job fits for the way they think. Actual results averaged 58 of 60 still employed at 9 months, scaled to 100 (97 per 100 vs prior 58 per 100). One employer.
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.