Work-relevant assessment and person–job mapping

1. Purpose

Keep people longer with better job fits for the way they think. The product does that by measuring how a person solves work — 50 timed items, six domains, composite ceiling 110 — then ranking occupational demands against that profile. The approved employer case: actual results averaged 58 of 60 still employed at 9 months, scaled to 100 (97 per 100 versus a prior keep of 58 per 100). That case is not a literature r, and literature r is not that case.

2. What is measured

Six work-relevant domains of behavioral task performance: executive reasoning; quantitative and spatial; verbal and working memory; visual pattern recognition; workplace social judgment; procedural sequencing. Items are work problems (prioritize a queue, compute a rate, hold a rule, extend a series, judge a workplace case, sequence a procedure). Not anatomical brain regions. Not a medical exam. Not an IQ classification label.

Bank freeze for this paper: 2026.08-B-keybalance-v2. Item counts: ER 9, QS 9, VW 8, VP 8, SJ 8, PS 8. Three forms (Career / Hiring / Federal) do not share stems after that freeze.

3. Scoring lock

Correct = 2.0 accuracy points. Speed bonus = 0.2 when the item is correct and under the bank’s speed threshold. Maximum composite = 110 (100 accuracy + 10 speed). Item windows are timed; accommodations are available. The lock is on the methodology page and in the public bank headers.

4. How matching works

Occupations in the product catalog carry O*NET-aligned weights on the six domains. A person’s domain percentages are combined with those weights to produce a fit index. Career Fit surfaces six ranked careers at $99 (unlimited at $199). Hiring Fit and Federal Fit deliver the same science to a manager or program lead as a profile, recommendations, and — for federal copy — occupational-family exploration. Holland (1997) informs interest-structure context for exploration; this instrument leads with demands–abilities fit, not a RIASEC score as the hire rule.

5. Literature that justifies the class of method

Schmidt and Hunter (1998) synthesized 85 years of selection research. General mental ability showed operational validity around r ≈ .51 for job performance in medium-complexity jobs — among the strongest single predictors. Validity in that tradition is typically higher as job complexity rises. Combining GMA with a second strong method (for example a structured interview) produced classic composite validities often cited near r ≈ .63–.65. Utility work in the same paper treats the dollar spread of performance as large enough that better ranking creates economic gain at scale (a common lower bound on SDy is about 40% of mean salary — use your own payroll).

Sackett, Zhang, Berry, and Lievens (2022) revisited range-restriction corrections and argued many classic coefficients were overstated. Cognitive ability remains a meaningful predictor under more conservative assumptions. We cite both papers so a sophisticated buyer is not sold a frozen 1998 number as if 2022 did not happen.

Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson (2005) meta-analyzed 172 studies and 836 effect sizes on fit at work. Person–job fit relates positively to satisfaction, commitment, and performance, and negatively to withdrawal and intent to leave. That is the keep mechanism: match how people think to the job they will do.

McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, and Maurer (1994) found structured employment interviews more valid than unstructured interviews. Shared rating language beats improvisation. The sample employee report therefore includes structured probes tied to item constructs — the second method, not a vibe check.

Salgado et al. (2003) reported international validity generalization for GMA and cognitive abilities in a European Community meta-analysis. The predictor class is not a single-country anecdote.

Professional documentation: Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978); SIOP Principles (2018); for federal employment practices, a rational relationship and professionally developed practices where applicable (5 C.F.R. § 300.103). Federal Fit remains exploration and workforce development — not a qualification determination, not OPM, not USAJOBS.

6. What we do not claim

We do not say “51% accurate.” Validity r is not a success rate. We do not invent an RWC-specific r. We do not treat the 58-of-60 keep case as a guarantee for the next cohort. We do not use this paper as IBM endorsement (quantum may appear in construction records only). We do not replace job analysis, interviews, or human judgment.

7. What a buyer receives

For one person: domain scores, item-construct outcomes, ranked job-fit recommendations with O*NET codes, federal family map when relevant, structured interview probes, and this citation trail. See the 12-page sample: https://realworldcareers.com/sample-employee

For a cohort: seats, invites, profiles, keep-oriented placement rules, compliance export path. Pilot $750 (6 seats). Scale $14,500 (290 seats), under the $15,000 micro-purchase threshold.

References

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. 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. 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. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040–2068. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994

Salgado, J. F., et al. (2003). International validity generalization of GMA and cognitive abilities. Personnel Psychology, 56, 573–605.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: 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 / ETA. O*NET. https://www.onetcenter.org/

U.S. EEOC et al. (1978). Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. 29 C.F.R. Part 1607.