FAQ: Cognitive assessment using the CPP & LOI
Contents
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
2. What is cognition ....................................................................................................................................... 1
3. Why assess cognition ................................................................................................................................. 2
4. Alternative cognitive assessment methodologies ...................................................................................... 3
5. How the CPP and LOI measure cognitive processes .................................................................................... 5
6. What does the CPP measure ..................................................................................................................... 5
7. How to interpret the CPP report .............................................................................................................. 13
8. Can the CPP be redone ............................................................................................................................ 22
9. When is a CPP report invalid ................................................................................................................... 23
10. Challenges in Cross cultural cognitive assessment .................................................................................. 24
11. The CPP research results ........................................................................................................................ 26
12. How to develop thinking skills………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37
13. Benefits and recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………40
1.
Introduction
This FAQ manual is aimed at clarifying a number of CPP related issues.
It starts off by explaining what cognition is, the constructs measured by the CPP, the measurement
methodology, practical considerations including redoing the CPP and recognising invalid reports, the research
results and the development of cognitive skills.
2.
What is cognition
Given the spectrum of consciousness as postulated by various consciousness theorists, cognition, according to
Wilber’s AQAL model, merely represents a developmental “line” or ”stream”, and does not encapsulate the
essence or apex of consciousness.
Up to a point, cognitive factors enable the emergence of consciousness, but this does not imply a linear
relationship between cognition and consciousness. People with high levels of cognitive capability, for example,
can be found at any of the various levels of consciousness as hypothesised by various consciousness theorists
and developmental psychologists.
Cognition is, however, of critical importance within educational and work environments and also an important
consideration within the context of leadership assessment and development.
For the purposes of CPP assessment, cognition is not merely regarded as intellectual “ability” as has been the
trend in Psychometrics for more than a century. The view proposed here, involves and integration of various
scientific questions posed by different research traditions with in the field of intelligence and cognition, aimed
at addressing the:

“what” of intelligence as embraced by Differential psychology and the IQ tradition, statistical research
techniques and the issue of generalised versus specific ability;
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 1





“how” of thinking as reflected by the Information processing paradigm;
“when” of cognitive capacity as investigated by Developmental psychologists such as Piaget and
Vygotsky;
“where” of competence as researched by the Contextualist school;
neurological structures and functions; and
philosophical speculations on the “mind-brain dichotomy”.
The concept of cognition overlaps with that of intelligence. The definition of both concepts are difficult and
complicated by their dependence on other elusive concepts such as “information”, “thinking”, “knowledge”,
“meaning” and the relationship between “structure and process”.
The term “intelligence” is a rather fuzzy concept and can be seen as being prototypical in nature in that it
refers to phenomena with properties which occur in some, but not all, instances. A prototype is the most
complete and best example of a concept or an "average member" of a category.
Intelligence is typically defined in terms of concepts such as learning, problem solving, memory, executive
control, judgement, speed and the ability to abstract. In reviewing its definitions in the literature, it appears
that the notion of intelligence seems quite arbitrary - or rather - the research community has failed to agree
on a definition for the concept. Despite their obvious limitations, some of these definitions seem to have
gained general acceptance mainly because of their parsimony and intuitive appeal. Intelligence is therefore a
problematic concept in that it is of a fuzzy nature incorporating many important features for which no definite
criteria can be determined.
For purposes of CPP assessment, the concept of intelligence primarily refers to the quality of conceptualisation
processes, or the way in which a person interprets the world meaningfully. It is proposed here that this
emphasis on conceptualisation can be fleshed out in terms of both structural and processing aspects.
In terms of the cognitive structures involved, the degree of intelligence of a mental act may be associated
with:

the number and diversity of structures;

structural representation at different levels;

the potential size and complexity of the structures;

the number and quality of inter-structural links, or the degree of integration;

the completeness and clarity of structures;

the modifiability, or potential adaptability of structures;

the potential for resistance to structural interference;

the absence of blocking / resistance to the formation of information structures;

the strength of the tendency toward increasing order, integration and differentiation.
The degree of intelligence of a cognitive act can also be related to the following functional aspects of
information processing:

the speed of processing;

its goal directedness;

the flexibility and fluency of thinking processes

the degree to which feedback is integrated to result in learning;

processing power, intensity, energy and momentum;

processing activity on all the identified levels (the levels referred to in the proposed theoretical
model, namely the performance, metacognitive, general or rule and subconscious levels);

the interaction and integration of processing activities between the different levels of processing,
including intuitive awareness of subconscious links; and

the degree of automatisation of processing procedures.
3.
Why assess cognition
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 2
A substantial body of research findings have for decades indicated the important impact of cognitive
functioning on job performance and academic preferences and achievement.
These findings largely reflect results based on traditional intelligence tests – even though compelling evidence
of the weaknesses of these psychometric techniques abounds. The development of more effective,
standardised criteria and effective tools for measuring cognitive functioning in culturally heterogeneous
contexts has been emphasised as an important research goal for decades.
4.
Alternative cognitive testing methodologies
Most organisations need information to assist them in selecting people for jobs or tasks and in deciding what
kinds of human resources development is required. In the overall psychometric evaluation of people, the
assessment of the way they think and learn is thus important. To a large extent, an individual’s thinking and
learning capacity determines the task complexity s/he is likely to master and the type of work s/he would
prefer, and is best suited to.
Thinking capability is measured psychometrically by capitalising on the following methodologies:
- Simulation exercises
- IQ tests and IQ tests with a Learning potential component
- Structured interviews
- Assessment centres
- Questionnaires
Each of these methodologies is briefly discussed, criticised and compared to the methodological approach
capitalised on by the CPP and LOI.
Simulation exercises:
In the case of the CPP and LOI a methodology has been devised to externalize and track thinking processes
according to thousands of feedback loops. The technique overlaps with those of simulations and assessment
centres. It measures a person’s real cognitive responses to an unfamiliar environment where the person needs
to make sense of, or meaningfully interpret confusing information according to somewhat discrepant task
instructions. The task is not transparent and does not require self-insight, as in the case of questionnaires. It
also does not require of the test subject to explain, interpret and justify career progress as in certain
structured interviews.
In the case of the CPP (and to a lesser extent the LOI), the test subject can project his/her own preferred level
of complexity onto the task; apply a preferred stylistic approach (e.g. Intuition, Logical reasoning, a Random
approach, etc), and create meaning in any way as there are no strictly right and wrong answers. The person
can also work at his/her own pace as the test is not timed. This is important as speed and power are separate
constructs in cognitive assessment. The content of the CPP and LOI is not knowledge based and therefore
largely independent from previous educational exposure. Because it is unfamiliar to all, the possibility of group
bias is reduced. The CPP and LOI measure both cognitive capability and cognitive preference and infer the
implications of a particular approach in the work context.
The CPP and LOI are self-administrated and the scoring takes place via an expert system in tenths of seconds –
therefore providing a highly standardized result – unlike that of the more subjective test methodologies such
as structured interviews and self-ratings. The report is also generated automatically.
The CPP and LOI are automated and thus quick and easy to do as opposed to the more time consuming
techniques such as observed assessment centres and structured interviews.
The results indicate developmental guidelines.
IQ tests
IQ tests measure intellectual “ability” by exposing the subject to highly structured content which has to be
manipulated via logical-analytical and memory processes in a linear-causal manner. Convergent reasoning is
required to come up with one correct answer within a particular knowledge domain (e.g. verbal-linguistic,
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 3
logical-mathematical, pattern recognition or other). IQ tests are mostly timed, which disadvantages slow but
powerful thinkers.
IQ tests items have been found to be culturally biased in that they often represent decontextualised and
disembedded information. IQ test results also primarily reflect the person’s current skills (acquired or
“crystallised ability”) in particular content areas and is heavily influenced by previous learning and exposure.
Tests such as the Ravens where pattern recognition and analysis skills are involved also reflect domain specific
skills and not “conceptual capability” as is often claimed. Most IQ tests also do not directly measure cognitive
adaptability and learning potential.
IQ test results are useful for predicting intellectual performance in structured and detailed, linear, knowledge
driven environments. It also indicates the educational sophistication of test subjects. Although IQ tests are
generally found to predict work performance at a 0.3 – 0.4 level, it does not specifically measure creative and
strategic thinking skills as is required in complex, dynamic and vague work contexts.
Structured Interviews
Results from Structured interviews seem to have higher levels of predictive validity than unstructured
interviews. Interview results are, however, affected by the subjective perceptions of the interviewers and
inter-rater reliability remains a challenge. A person’s verbal skills, warmth and personality orientation also
seems to play a significant role in determining the outcome of a structured interview. Predictions based on
structured interviews are generally as valid as the self-insight and honesty of the subject and the objectivity
and skill of the interviewer. Structured interviews reflect the individual’s hindsight on his/her own functioning
and may include justifications and overgeneralisations of their work-related functioning. A serious
shortcoming of certain structured interviews such as the CPA is that it capitalises on the current position and
the career history of the individual which may well skew the outcome of the interview. Although most
individuals prefer to talk about their work rather than to do a test, some personality types, such as introverts,
and/or unassuming individuals, may be underestimated.
Skilled and wise interviewers as well as clear scoring criteria are therefore required in the case of structured
interviews.
Assessment Centres
Assessment methodology includes a variety of techniques such as “inbasket” exercises, leaderless groups and
case studies. There are normally designed to assess the specific competency requirements of a position or an
organisation. Candidates who are subjected to these exercises are observed by raters.
The major factor that may impact on the validity of assessment centre results, is that of “inter-rater reliability”.
Because various raters may be subjectively biased, assessment criteria need to be operationalised and
specified in detail. Another challenge is related to the fact that performance is largely affected by previous
experience. Assessment centres are therefore not suitable for the assessment of learning potential.
The predictive validity of assessment centres, which normally reflect the requirements of the work
environment, is relatively good – especially as a measurement of current competence (as opposed to learning
potential). The use of assessment centre methodology is, however, expensive and time consuming.
Questionnaires
Questionnaires are generally not effective for the assessment of cognitive capacity. This is because their
results largely rely on the candidate’s self-insight as well as the image that they prefer to project. Many test
subjects, especially those that are not psychologically aware or introspectively inclined, are not in a position to
provide objective information on their own intellectual functioning. Questionnaire-based items are also
relatively transparent, which allows for the manipulation of the test results.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 4
5.
How does the CPP & LOI measure thinking processes
The methodology for assessing cognitive capability and preference, involves a computerised simulation
exercise which links the detailed subcomponents of the processes specified by the theoretical model, to
specific behavioural responses.
The CPP and LOI track the person’s operationalized and externalised thinking processes automatically
according to thousands of measurement points. The results are interpreted algorithmically by an expert
system. An automated reporting function generates in-depth reports which indicate the person’s current and
potential cognitive functioning, stylistic preferences, learning potential, most suitable work environment in
terms of the Stratified Systems Theory (SST) and provides developmental guidance.
To be more specific:
- The CPP is based on a self-contained theoretical model of thinking processes – where all “processing
constructs” have been broken down into their subcomponents at increasingly detailed levels. For
example, “Exploration” consists of “explorativeness”, “strategies to guide exploration”,
“hypothesising”, “focus”, “discrimination” between relevant and irrelevant, “selection” etc. Each of
these building blocks have been further subdivided into a number of sub-elements, for example:
“hypothesising” involves the identification of core elements followed by the exploration of related
information in order to verify / falsify an idea / concept, etc. These tendencies have been further
subdivided and linked to real responses on the test.
- In other words, the CPP and LOI games have been devised to “externalise” thinking processes in
terms of actions such as card movements so that the computer can track it.
- Processing tendencies are measured according to thousands of measurement points and feedback
loops.
- The CPP measurement structure reflects a layered approach to the sorting of data. Given its dynamic
nature, the dimensions overlap and interact. The processing / functional categories are represented
as “fields of a matrix” and are differentiated between in terms of “meta-criteria” such as: generality,
necessity and conscious application.
- Both cognitive preferences and capabilities are inferred by the expert system (as opposed to merely
right and wrong answers).
- These are then analysed to determine an ideal work environment in terms of the SST model. The
Level of work indices basically reflect: stylistic preference, unit of information preference, judgement
capability and quantitative scores on specific processing dimensions.
The goal of the CPP is to provide information that has practical utility in the job context and that can guide
personal development. It is used to assess adults at all levels in the work environment, especially at managerial
to executive levels for purposes of selection, placement, team compilation, succession and development. The
LOI is primarily used to assess generation Y for selection, development and guidance purposes.
6.
What does the CPP measure
Most of the intelligence research to date has been conducted as part of the Differential paradigm aimed at
revealing the structure of the intellect. It has resulted in the development of IQ tests, measuring “ability”. The
theoretical assumptions underlying ability testing include an emphasis on genetic and hereditary factors, the
view that ability is static, that it may be content dependent (e.g. verbal-linguistic, numerical, spatial, etc), and
that speed and power are linearly related. IQ test items are highly structured, decontextualised (disembedded)
contain domain specific content, and require linear-causal analytical as well as convergent logical thinking.
Time limitations are imposed. Already acquired knowledge and skills largely determine IQ test performance.
Significant cultural group differences are found. Correlations between IQ test scores resulted in the emergence
of a general factor or “g”.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 5
The CPP measures both “cognitive preferences and capabilities” as opposed to “ability”. In other words, the
CPP regards cognitive functioning as the result of a person’s learning history and opportunities, hereditary
factors, physical and psychological health, emotional and motivational factors and metacognitive awareness.
Cognitive functioning is seen as dynamic and interactive, and the potential for lifelong cognitive growth and
adaptation exist. The CPP measures cognitive trends and tendencies by externalising and tracking thinking
processes according to thousands of measurement points which are then interpreted meaningfully by an
expert system. Both current and potential functioning is indicated and speed and power are measured as
separate factors.
CPP measurements are based on a theoretical model of information processing. The model consists of five
cognitive processes operating on four "levels", or “modes” of processing. The processes reflect functional
unities and are regarded as having descriptive rather than explanatory value. They are defined and compared
with similar constructs in the literature in an effort to expand the existing nomological network. These
processes are:
 focusing and selecting – as the core exploration processes
 linking – as a core analytical function
 structuring – as core to understanding, creating meaning and integration
 transformation – consisting of convergent and divergent procedures to generate creative options
 retention & recall – the memory function which acts as a platform for all other processing
 all the above processes are metacognitively guided
Figure 1: The “holonic” structure of the information processing model on which the CPP is based
Metacognition: Self-awareness,
Transformation:
Transfer, restructure,
logical reasoning, lateral
creation
self-monitoring, learn, strategise,
use judgement and intuition
Structuring: Categorise,
order, group, generalise,
integrate, represent,
abstract, conceptualise
Metacognition
Transformation
Structuring
Analysis
Exploration
Memory
Exploration: Search,
scan, focus, investigate,
clarify, hypothesize,
discriminate, select
Analysis: Differentiate
Memory: Retention,
recall, internalisation,
automation
(break-up), compare,
apply rules, identify
relationships
These processing constructs can be represented as overlapping fields of a matrix, a view comparable to that of
“holons”, which is a term coined by Wilber (2000). The processes and processing subcomponents have been
ordered and categorised in various ways to measure a variety of cognitive preferences and capabilities.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 6
The cognitive constructs that are being measured by the CPP include:






preferred cognitive style and “brain quadrant”;
thinking processes (as based on the validated model as already discussed);
learning potential;
speed related constructs;
a suitable work environment; and
work-related cognitive competencies including strategic thinking and judgement capability.
In addition, it interprets the overall processing profile qualitatively, indicates strengths and development areas
and provides developmental guidelines. The LOI indicates the person’s complexity preferences and
capabilities, processing preferences (logic, ideas, structure and challenge driven preferences), processing
scores and the metacognitive criteria as internalised by the person.
The constructs reported on by the CPP
Problem Solving Styles
Work-Related Processing Dimensions
Explorative
Analytical
Structured
Holistic
Intuitive
Memory
Integrative
Logical Reasoning
Reflective
Learning
Random
Impulsive
Metaphoric
Efficient/Quick Insight
Balanced Profile
Detail Complexity
Dynamic Complexity
Operational Approach
Strategic Approach
Short-term Orientation
Long-Term Orientation
Structured
Unstructured
CPP
Information Processing Competence
Exploration: Pragmatic
Exploration: Exploring
Analysis: Analytical
Analysis: Rule Oriented
Structuring: Categorisation
Structuring: Integration
Structuring: Complexity
Transformation: Logical Reasoning
Transformation: Verbal Abstraction
Memory: Use of Memory
Memory: Memory Strategies
Metacognition: Judgement
Metacognition: Quick Insight Learning
Metacognition: Experiential Learning
Speed and Timing
Speed
Quick Insight
Pace Control
Quick Closure
Left/Right Brain Metaphor
Logical-Analytical
Integrative-Metaphoric-Intuitive
Structured-Memory-Reflective
Flexibility & Open-Minded Awareness, Learning
Current and Potential Level of Work
Purely Operational
Diagnostic Accumulation
Alternative Paths/Tactical Strategy
Parallel Processing
Purely Strategic
Learning Potential
Tendency to prefer difficult to easy information
High general level of cognitive functioning
Capacity to access higher levels of complexity
Tendency to seek cognitive challenge
Good metacognitive awareness
Good learning capacity and cognitive modifiability
Tendency to get bored with unchallenging tasks
Insufficient detail & precision
Application of weak problem solving strategies
Relatively quick insight, yet a tendency to work slowly
Holistic evaluation of the overall profile
Tendency to distrust own judgement
High scores on verbal conceptualisation processes
Already developed strategies for managing complexity
Right brain orientation
Low confidence
Styles
The 15 stylistic preferences measured by the CPP are of a descriptive nature, to some extent overlap. The
specific combination of stylistic preferences provide valuable of a person’s cognitive natural preferences as
well as adaptations to the educational and work environments. The following styles are measured and rank
ordered:
o Explorative: tendency to investigate to identify relevant information for further processing
o Analytical: tendency to independently and systematically pull issues apart (differentiate) to identify
detailed subcomponents and the relationships between these.
o Reflective: careful, deliberate and unhurried / gradual reconsideration of options.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 7
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Logical: a consequential, process oriented reasoning approach and tendency to follow arguments
through in a critical manner to come to conclusion or identify implications or alternatives.
Structured: a tendency to categorise, represent, or integrate information in an orderly manner
around core elements to deal with complexity and to create greater certainty and structure
Memory: a tendency to rely on previously acquired knowledge and experience to enhance
performance and create certainty, it may form a optimise an intuitive, learning or analytical approach
Learning: curiosity, a tendency to explore and familiarise oneself with new information, a tendency to
get bored with familiar information / routine tasks, openness to change and challenge
Quick Insight: tendency to quickly grasp new challenges, an emphasis on speed and learning
Impulsivity: a tendency to be quick and inaccurate, characterised by quick closure, superficiality, may
be reflective of inadequate rigour in thinking or of emotional factors.
Random: a tendency to work in an unplanned and inconsistent manner as opposed to in a
metacognitively guided manner.
Integrative: a tendency to make meaning of and to synthesise fragmented or discrepant information
Holistic: a big picture approach capitalising on the relevance of certain details, given the context
Intuitive: a gut feel approach capitalising on previous exposure and subconscious or collective
awareness to generate solutions – often of a creative nature
Metaphoric: a creative, unusual approach integrating visual and verbal information
Balanced: the tendency to capitalise on typical “left - and right brain” approaches as well as learning
to adapt to the cognitive requirements of different contexts.
The combination of styles:
It should be pointed out that the particular combination of stylistic preferences on the CPP provides more
richness than the styles themselves, as particular stylistic combinations are reflective of values and personality
predispositions.
For example, Logical reasoning and Memory styles in combination, often indicate a sensitive, careful, rigorous,
knowledge-based and high standards approach. The Logical reasoning, Analytical and Explorative styles are
typical of those who show a typical “left brain” orientation, such as accountants. Those preferring a Logical
reasoning combined with an Integrative style show a preference for complexity, making meaning and the
world of ideas. Logical reasoning combined with a Metaphoric style, indicate a strong “right brain”, ideas
oriented and transformational approach such as may be required by certain legal professions (but not in the
case of lawyers dealing with routine, specialist applications). A purely Metaphoric style, however, may indicate
a somewhat unanalytical, auditive, creative and verbal or conceptual orientation. Logical reasoning combined
with Learning and Quick insight indicate challenge seeking, rigour, and maybe a tendency to get bored, but
also confidence, yet self-discipline and commitment, whereas those who only show a Learning and Quick
insight stylistic approach, can be expected to seek challenge and novelty, be highly adaptive and show career
mobility (in certain environments, often within a two year time frame). This tendency is even more
pronounced when combined with an MBTI: NP profile.
The effectiveness of the Memory style in particular, depends on what it is combined with. Should a Memory
style be combined with a Reflective, Structured and/or Explorative approach, it indicates a focus on tangible
information and a reliance on previous knowledge and experience driven by a need for certainty. It may
compromise effectiveness in vague and unfamiliar contexts. Should the Memory style be combined with an
Intuitive, Learning, Integrative, Holistic or Logical approach, it will facilitate integrative and intuitive
conceptualisation.
A Random and Impulsive approach, also when in combination with an Explorative or Reflective style, are
generally ineffective. This tendency may be emotionally driven and be triggered by performance anxiety,
which in extreme cases may render a person’s CPP results invalid. It may also be related to personality and
biological factors (impulsivity, over-sensitivity, demotivation or depression) or to a history of inadequate
analytical training which resulted in a lack of cognitive discipline and rigour. It can be remediated relatively
easily, though – depending on age, motivation and opportunity factors.
Many such stylistic combinations are reported on by the CPP, all of which seem to manifest in work-related
functioning too. These styles developed due to both the inherent preferences of the person as well as learning
experiences. Other factors such as values, culture and consciousness may also be involved. The observations
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 8
reported on here, however, are based on qualitative action research and have not been explored
experimentally as yet.
Processes
Exploration
The CPP measures different exploration strategies and tendencies of varying degrees of effectiveness.
The subcomponents measured, include:













External ones focused on
Internal ones and hypotheses
Rules focused on
Analytical sequences focused on
Logical sequences focused on
Core elements focused on
Discriminating between relevant and
irrelevant information
Eliminating irrelevant info
Assumptions
Subtle discrimination
Clarifications of fuzzy information
Perceptual accuracy
Seeking assistance / help







Degree of focus
Checking with exploration
Metacognitive application of instructions
Systematic exploration
Metacognitive pace control
Degree of use of explored info
Elimination of irrelevant info






Hypothesizing
Attention allocation
Scanning
Recognition
Clarification
Degree of investigation
Analysis / Linking
The CPP measures analytical tendencies and effectiveness. The subcomponents measured, include:









Precision and accuracy
Differentiations
Number of steps on linking
Rule orientation
Checking
Association
Incorrect links made
Comparison
Spontaneous comparison









Matching
Duplication
Combination
Rules management
Metacognitive elimination of irrelevant rules
Literal rules interpretation
Rule instructions
Linear sequences
Systematic approach
Structuring and Integration
The CPP measures different structuring tendencies and effectiveness.
The subcomponents measured, include:











Elimination of rules
External management of cards
External ordering
Elimination strategy
Managing alternatives
Integration
Coherence
Analogies and metaphors
Level of complexity
Convergence
Generalisation
FAQ: CPP & LOI











Metacognitive management of instructions
Conceptualisation
Extraction of core elements
Abstraction
Summarise
Reduction
Synthesis / integration
Formulate and define
Patterning
Reframe
Represent
Page 9
Transformation or Logical and lateral reasoning
The CPP measures different transformational preferences, strategies, tendencies as well as the effectiveness of
these. The subcomponents measured, include:












Verification
Complexity of transformations
Degree of follow through
Elimination assumptions
Quality of abstractions
Quantity of obstructions
Flexibility
Unusualness
Getting structure
Logical sequence
Monitoring of reasoning
Metacognitive transfers












Metacognitive management of instruction
Convergence
Divergence
Restructuring
Justification
Falsification
Backward reasoning
Tuning
Consequential thinking
Transfer
Lateral processes
Memory
The CPP measures different memory strategies and tendencies. The subcomponents measured, include:
 Rules memorised
 Practice
 Symbols memorised
 Economising
 Checking
 Speed
 Transference of meanings
 Attention allocation
 Memory strategies
 Automation
 Degree of memory use
 Association
 Degree of irrelevant info memorised

Metacognition
The CPP measures metacognitive aweareness and the application of metacognitive strategies. The
subcomponents measured, include:
















Self monitoring
Pace control
Clarification of fuzzies
Degree of differentiation
Metacognitve discrimination
Degree of consistency
Integration phase
Coherence
Learning from feedback
Learning curves
Adopting strategies
Adopting styles
Effectiveness of transformations
Impulsivity
Efficiency of speed
Insight
FAQ: CPP & LOI















Processing trends
Balanced profile
Use of judgement
Self correction
Big picture
Intuition
Quick closure
Assumption
Shifting perspective
Strategising
Prioritising
Task focus
Goal defectiveness
Consistency
Alertness and awareness
Page 10
What is the relationship between the Cognitive processing competencies and the
cognitive styles?
The cognitive processing competencies are made up of normalised subscores that indicate effective processing
activities. It may also involve a preference for such processing activity, but effectiveness and “capability” is a
prerequisite in the case of the processing competency scores reported on in the CPP report bargraph.
For example, the “Analytical” processing competency score incorporates subscores reflective of: using the
correct rules, being detailed, being systematic, pulling situations apart to identify sub-elements, identifying
relationships between sub-elements, working in a linear-causal manner, focusing on factual information, etc.
In measuring the tendency to apply certain cognitive styles, both “preference” and “capability” play a role and
depends on the style being calculated. (The capability components are also reflected by the processing
competency scores.)
For example, the “Random” and “Impulsive” styles reflect relatively ineffective processing tendencies (which
are only effective in certain environments, for example in advertising or innovative contexts where random
ideas can add value). Some styles, like “Exploration” reflects the tendency to explore more so than the
effectiveness of exploration (although some of the latter scores also form part of this dimension). A person
who tends to explore, even though it is ineffective, may thus show an Explorative style. If it is ineffective, it is
bound to be combined by a Random or Impulsive style as well. Likewise, the “Reflective”, “Structured” and
“Metaphoric” styles, involve a strong “tendency” or “preference” component and a smaller “capability or
“effectiveness” component. However, certain styles such as the “Analytical”, “Logical”, “Integrative”,
“Holistic”, “Memory”, “Intuitive” and “Learning” styles reflect both capability and preference. A preference for
any of these styles also indicates the capability to use it effectively.
Learning potential
The measurement of “learning potential”, or “cognitive modifiability”, poses a number of theoretical
challenges to psychologists. It requires a methodology which can make inferences about aspects of
cognitive functioning which do not yet exist, in other words, can transcend the already developed
competency and skills set of a person in order to predict future growth of (a) personal capacity as well
as that of (b) knowledge base.
The construct of “learning potential” is particularly useful in cases where (a) cultural and educational
diversity (nurture / exposure), (b) psychological, motivational and emotional factors, have interacted
with (c) genetic predispositions (talent / narture) to have created a unique skills set, and where the
current skills are not a good indication of the degree of capability and adaptability of the individual.
In terms of current practice, a number of “psychometric” techniques are used to assess learning
potential:
IQ tests for example, are generally regarded as a valid indication of cognitive modifiability – especially
by those who buy into the concept of “g”, or “general intelligence”. To proponents of “g”, a person’s
IQ reflects their level of potential for further growth. Others oppose this view, and regard IQ as a
reflection of the quality of educational exposure a person has had – sometimes referred to as
“crystallized” ability (according to Cattell). These theorists seem to measure “crystallized” capacity
primarily via verbal IQ and “fluid” capacity, which they regard as an indication of learning potential,
via non-verbal item content such as figural analysis. Such an approach is criticized for confusing
“content” and process issues in intelligence research.
The IQ tradition with its emphasis on genetic determinants of “ability” as a static construct, has
completely been rejected by theorists such as Vygotsky and Feuerstein. According to them,
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 11
“intelligence” is a dynamic construct and affected by both nature and nurture and is best assessed via
a test-train-test approach, and the calculation of learning curves.
A typical technique used to assess learning potential in terms of this approach, is that of “progressive
clues”. The individual is exposed to a learning event, and required to transfer his/her insights to a
similar type of item. Should the person be unable to solve the problem as modelled, a range of
progressively useful clues are sequentially provided – each containing more revealing information so
as to ensure the successful solution of the problem by the test subject. The number of clues required
indicate the degree of skill transfer, or learning potential.
Another technique used to assess learning potential, is that of evaluating metacognitive-, or selfawareness. Metacognition is an awareness of own thinking and therefore involves self-evaluation and
correction.
Yet another approach is to repeatedly expose a person to similar (internally consistent) problem
solving situations. Their initial performance is regarded as an indication of current capacity, and the
level at which they plateau, as their potential level of functioning. IQ testing – although limited - is
often used for this purpose as well.
Motivation is often regarded as the very best indication of learning potential. This is commonly
assessed via structured interviews.
The CPP measures learning potential by capitalising on:
- the progressive clues concept,
- tracking of metacognitive awareness,
- using unfamiliar task content and
- tracking the degree of transfer
In other words, it analyses learning curves, and tracks a number of processing tendencies that the
CPP methodology can access, including:
- a preference for relatively difficult (vs easy) task material
- inadequate confidence in own judgement, insight and intuition
- the application of low quality problem solving strategies
- the emotional factor of boredom and the need for challenge
- emotional factors related to impulsivity, fear and superficiality
- cognitive and personality rigidity
- an excessive need for structures and rules
- undeveloped analytical skills, or a strong “right brain” orientation and avoidance of
detail and facts
- inconsistency in functioning
- already developed cognitive skill sets which can be capitalized on
- capacity for verbal conceptualization and understanding
In terms of its theoretical grounding and methodological characteristics, the CPP can therefore be
regarded as an advanced technique for the measurement of learning potential.
Time / Speed
It should be pointed out that Speed and Power are two independent constructs in cognitive functioning. In
other words, cognitive preference and capability does not depend on speed factors – except where speed is an
integral part of cognitive functioning, as in the case of impulsivity, reflectiveness, etc.
Unfortunately most timed intelligence tests provide an indication of “ability” / power that is contaminated by
speed factors. Test subjects who prefer to work at a slower pace are thus penalised in terms of their power /
ability scores.
In the case of the CPP, a number of speed related factors are measured independently from cognitive
preference and capability. Four of these are reported on, namely:
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 12
-
Speed
Quick Insight
Pace control and
Quick closure.
Ideally the Speed and Quick insight scores should be relatively similar – as this indicates the tendency to work
at an appropriate speed which is in line with the rate at which the material is grasped.
Should there be a difference of 10 points or more between Speed and Quick Insight, this could indicate a
mismatch between the two. If Speed is the higher score, it means that the person tends to work too fast –
without always understanding what is involved. If Quick insight is the higher score, it means that the person
could work faster if necessary without performance being affected. It may be an indication of being careful
and/or reflective.
Pace control measures whether the person allocates the most time to the most challenging aspects of the task.
A relatively high score on Pace control is a good sign – meaning that the person is aware of the complexity
challenges being dealt with.
Quick closure measures instances where the person jumps to conclusions without adequately exploring or
reflecting about the conclusions. It is an independent construct, in other words, a person may achieve a
relatively high score on quick closure (making assumptions), while at the same time working at a relatively low
speed, or achieving higher scores on Quick Insight than on Speed.
But what are high or low scores here?
The distribution of the scores on the speed table mostly is between 30 and 70. Higher and lower scores are
found in extreme cases. This is because each of the speed scores are calculated based on a number of t-scores
which are averaged. The moment a number of scores are averaged, the distribution of the calculated score is
narrowed.
Relatively high scored on Speed, Quick insight and Pace control are in the vicinity of 60 – 70.
A relatively high score on Quick Closure is 50. Should the Quick closure score exceed 60, it may indicate an
emotional reaction or inadequate cognitive control and rigour.
Stratified Systems Theory: level of work
The Stratified Systems Theory (SST) of Elliott Jaques, regards time frame as the best indicator of the complexity
of work. “Time frame” can be described in terms of the period between making a decision, and receiving
useful feedback according to which that decision can be altered. The longer this period, the more complex the
work. The SST model reflects 7 levels of work.
The CPP only reflects cognitive suitability to the first 5 levels of the SST. It should, however be pointed out that
the CPP functioning at a SST level 5 is sufficient to support effectiveness in the higher SST levels (that do not
only require cognitive skill, but also more holistic factors). The CPP assessment does not capitalise on “time
frame” as a criterion of complexity in order to predict a work environment best suited to a person’s
capabilities and preferences.
Instead, the CPP measures the following aspects of information processing, namely:
- the unit of information a person prefers to work with (ranging from a focus on separate
elements, linear causality, tangible systems, dynamic interactive systems and chaos and
emerging pattern)
- his/her stylistic preferences (15 different stylistic preferences are measured and can broadly
be linked to SST requirements)
- his/her job-related preferences and capabilities (regarding (a) detail and dynamic
complexity, (b) operational versus strategic or focus on tangible vs intangible work contents,
(c) short term versus long term time frames, and (d) structured versus unstructured
environments).
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 13
-
his/her judgement capability and capacity to effectively rely on intuitive insights.
The various SST environments differ both (a) qualitatively and (b) quantitatively.
Qualitative differences refer to the nature of the work, for example: Pure Operational work is characterised by
a routine, action orientation. Diagnostic work often involves a problem solving and technical orientation,
whereas Tactical Strategy / Alternative Paths work primarily centre around planning, organising, finding
alternatives and the improvement of operational efficiencies. At a Parallel Processing work level, the focus
becomes more integrative, transformative and broad, and at a Pure Strategic level, a macro-economic and
philosophical awareness is required.
Quantitative differences refer to the increasing complexity demands of each of the consecutive levels. Every
level is less structured and involves less clarity in terms of guidelines than the previous level. The information
becomes increasing vague and fuzzy and the number of factors, their interrelationships, the intervening
variables as well as the implications of the interaction between these aspects, become increasingly abstract
and difficult to predict.
High levels of “intelligence” as measured via IQ tests fail to predict the capacity to rely on one’s intuition, to
deal with vague, fuzzy and dynamic aspects, and to provide leadership under circumstances that are
unpredictable.
7.
How to interpret the CPP report
In this section of the FAQ manual, the focus will be on the processing scores as represented graphically at the
back of the CPP report.
Exploration
When having to deal with an unfamiliar and complex or vague issue, the problem solver needs to explore the
problem in order to clarify what is involved and what is relevant.
The Exploration processing score indicates both (a) the degree to which a person explores, and (b) the
effectiveness by which s/he does so.
The Explorative Style, however, largely measures the tendency to explore without considering how effective it
is. Should a person’s score on the processing dimension of Exploration be low, while s/he has a high score on
Explorative Style, it means that most of the exploration behaviour is ineffective. An ineffective Exploration
style is normally associated with a Random or even Reflective approach. Should Explorative style and Random
style co-occur, it indicates that the person is confused and may be going in circles without a plan and without a
metacognitive awareness of “relevance” and “clarity”. In other words, the person is unfocused and unaware of
how to clearly identifying relevant information to deal with.
Pragmatic
This aspect measures the degree to which the person focuses on and effectively deals with structured and
relatively clear information. Relatively high scores on this dimension (as compared to the person’s other
processing scores) is associated with a preference for familiar or tangible contexts. It may indicate a practical
orientation. Relatively low scores (as compared to the person’s other processing scores), is associated with a
dislike of structured, unchallenging, routine or obvious information. It could indicate a tendency to become
bored relatively easily (to come to this conclusion, however, there needs to be several indications of boredom
on the person’s CPP report).
Should both the Pragmatic and the Judgement scores on the person’s profile be significantly lower that his/her
other processing scores, it may indicate a lack of focus (on both structured and vague information) and may be
an indication of a report rendered invalid by emotional or motivational factors.
Exploration
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 14
This is an overall score of both the tendency and the effectiveness by which a person tends to explore
unfamiliar issues. Relatively low scores (compared to the person’s other processing scores), may indicate a
reluctance to explore, or a lack of metacognitive guidance and awareness when first exploring an issue. The
metacognitive criteria guiding exploration is primarily: depth (do I need more information / other sources of
information), clarity (what is unclear), and relevance (which elements are important). Those who are used to
function in a familiar context and within a comfort zone, often become less explorative in general, and tend to
take things at face value. This skill can be improved via metacognitive training.
Should both the Pragmatic and the Judgement scores on the person’s profile be significantly lower that his/her
other processing scores, it may indicate a lack of focus (on both structured and vague information) and may be
an indication of a report rendered invalid by emotional or motivational factors.
Analysis
Analytical processes are largely developed within school and work environments that are highly structured and
rule-based.
The Analytical dimension measures the extent to which a person:
independently pulls issues apart to identify the subcomponents and building blocks,
works with detail and precision – at the most appropriate level of analysis
follows a systematic step by step approach
identifies relationships
Works with rules
demonstrate facts orientation
Relatively low scores on analysis (as compared to the person’s other processing scores) often indicate that the
person:
does not like detail or rules (check the Rules and Memory scores);
does not independently pull things apart and identify relationships;
explored poorly and has insufficient information to deal with; and
has not developed the metacognitive awareness of: rules, level of analysis, systematic approach,
detail, accuracy, relationship, etc. These metacognitive criteria need to be internalized and
automatically applied for effective analysis.
Relatively high scores on the Analytical process indicate a technical-specialist orientation, probably a focus on
facts, probably a somewhat “left brain “ orientation, and rule-based discipline and precision. High scores also
indicate that the person has internalized the metacognitive criteria that guide analytical processing.
Should a relatively high score on Analysis co-occur with a low score on Exploration, it may indicate that the
person explores insufficiently, followed by a thorough analysis of those elements that were selected during the
exploration process. This tendency may indicate performance anxiety – but not of a serious nature. In other
words, it does not render the result invalid. But it may indicate that the person may miss relevant issues –
regardless of the strong analytical orientation.
Those with a relatively low score on Analysis and a relatively high score on Memory, normally describe
themselves as “analytical”. Although they tend to work with detailed facts and rely on their knowledge base,
they may not independently analyse unfamiliar problems.
Relatively high scores on Exploration combined with relatively low scores on Analysis may well indicate a
tendency to focus on detail, without taking it further by pulling it apart and identifying relationships between
elements.
A relatively high score on Rules and/or Categorisation as opposed to on Analysis may indicate that the person
is in a process of developing an analytical orientation and an awareness of rules is one of many prerequisites
for analytical behavior.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 15
However, should the Analytical score by significantly higher than the Rules and Categorisation scores, it means
that the person does not focus on the Rules and the categories as such, but manages to implement these
aspects as part of their analytical approach. The score on analysis therefore “overrules” the scores on Rules
and Categorisation. In fact, in most cases those with a high score on Analysis, should not have high scores on
Rules – except in careers that reuire a strong rule orientation such as actuarial sciences.
A relatively low scores on Analysis as compared to the score on Logical reasoning, indicates a need for
challenge (as opposed to facts). Well-developed Logical reasoning processes may indicate the presence of a
somewhat “right brain” ideas orientation which has adapted to the typical “left brain” requirements of the
school and work environments. High scores on Logical reasoning indicates the tendency to apply a process
oriented approach in considering implications and consequences – rather than just a facts based orientation.
Exceptionally high scores on Analytical does not necessarily mean that the person loves detail – but that s/he
can work with detail, and that s/he does so in unfamiliar contexts. However, in his/her work s/he may not
necessarily be the technical specialist (although s/he can be) – especially true if his/her Complexity and Logic
scores are also high.
Structuring
Structuring skills measured by the CPP includes a number of processes ranging from the identification of core
elements; the simple grouping and categorising of information (to deal with complexity); the representation of
information structures or schemata (which form coherent wholes of elements and their interrelationships);
the integration of diverse, discrepant and vague information, and strategies to deal with complexity. The CPP
report only indicates a person’s scores on Categorisation, Integration and Complexity. Structuring processes
are guided by metacognitive criteria, primarily those of “coherence”, “meaning”, “abstraction” and
“representation”.
Categorisation is a relatively simple process by which related elements are grouped. The CPP measures the
way in which these related elements are externally ordered to assist memory functions. High scores on this
dimension, reflect the tendency to physically group elements (via summaries, pictures, graphs…). This skill is
very important for academic performance as students are often overwhelmed with large volumes of
information that need to be simplified and meaningfully represented.
Relatively low scores on Categorisation (as compared to the person’s other processing scores) may not impact
on the person’s performance, provided that the person can deal with relatively high levels of complexity and
can effectively capitalise on memory and intuition.
Relatively high scores on Categorisation (as compared to the person’s other processing scores), may indicate
an emerging skill and an appreciation of the value of ordering and representation of information.
Integration is, however, more complex that merely ordering and categorising information. Integration often
involve either abstraction, or the application of a new perspective to meaningfully interpret fragmented
elements in a coherent and meaningful manner. Integrative skills are often regarded as typically of a “right
brain” nature. Those with a strong ideas orientation are most likely to develop integrative skills as school
environments seldom teaches an integrative approach to knowledge management and problem solving.
The Complexity score on the CPP is less a “process” than a combination of strategies to manage complexity
and the resultant unit of information used by a person. Not only are metacognitive skills involved, but also
capability factors. This dimension is also quite resistant to development, partly because of a person is not
aware of the unit of information s/he uses, and therefore cannot consciously practice the use of alternative
units of information. Capability factors, or system limits can also contribute towards a ceiling effect. It should
be pointed out that the development of strategies to deal with complexity largely depends on learning
opportunities. Complexity capabilities are therefore not just genetically determined.
Relatively high scores on Complexity as compared to a person’s other processing scores, is a good indicator of
the potential for further cognitive growth.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 16
Relatively low scores on Complexity as compared to a person’s other processing scores, is an indication that
the person has the potential to, and needs to develop metacognitive strategies to manage complexity.
Transformation / Logical and lateral reasoning
The dimension of Transformation measures various processing tendencies in changing information structures.
Logical and lateral reasoning strategies are primarily assessed.
Logical reasoning is measured in terms of the tendency to incorporate analytical detail in a rigorous process
aimed at identifying alternative options or to follow thinking processes though in terms of implications and
consequences. Curiosity, interest, a need for cognitive challenge, rigour and innovative values underlie the
tendency to reason about, and reformulate issues. The metacognitive criteria that largely guide logical and
lateral reasoning are those of “purposefulness”, “application”, “contextualisation” and “degree of innovation”.
Relatively low scores on Logical reasoning (as compared to the person’s other processing scores), may indicate
a level of disinterest, low energy or demotivation to spend effort on the test and perhaps also on work in
general. Such low scores are also common amongst those who largely rely on memory and prefer to
regurgitate knowledge rather than to rethink matters. It may also be related to internalised values as it seems
common amongst those from authoritarian, traditional, dogmatic and paternalistic cultural backgrounds.
Where both the Logical reasoning and Verbal Conceptualisation scores are very low as compared to the
person’s other processing scores, it could indicate either serious demotivation or even depression – although
this possibility needs to be explored further.
The skill of Verbal conceptualisation / abstract conceptualisation as measured by the CPP indicates the
manner in which a person verbally interprets information and formulates coherent, unusual and abstract
ideas. It thus reflects the degree to which the person relies on a verbal, or auditive, mode of processing (as
opposed to a visual mode of processing); applies unusual or creative information processing tendencies; relies
on verbal creativity by using analogies and metaphors or story telling techniques; formulates abstract
concepts; uses flowery language, rambles or reverts to verbosity. Both effective and ineffective strategies in
making meaning of one’s world, are therefore measured by this dimension.
Verbal conceptualisation is guided by all the metacognitive strategies involved in Structuring and
Transformation, as it may involve both processing dimensions.
Ideally, a person’s score on Verbal Conceptualisation, should be comparable to his/her Judgement score. A
significantly higher score on Verbal Conceptualisation as compared to Judgement, may indicate inadequate
clarification before conceptualisation and often a reliance on external sources of clarification of vague
information. Wordiness and long-windedness can also result in confusing communication.
It is important to note that a high score on Verbal conceptualisation does not necessarily indicate extraversion.
A relatively low score on Verbal Conceptualisation may indicate a strong visual and factual orientation (usually
associated with a high score on Analytical skills) and the tendency to communicate only what is
necessary; demotivation and disinterest in doing the test; anxiety; a tendency to be factual and; previous
trauma; emotional factors related to extreme introversion or a reluctance to communicate.
Effective conceptualisation and clear communication, has a significant impact on others. Analogies and
metaphors can easily be used to sway opinions and create powerful visual representations. Verbal expressions
as well as the associated non-verbal messages thus hold significant interpersonal power.
The processing dimension of Verbal conceptualisation also loads on the Metaphoric cognitive style. It is
characterised by the tendency to view a situation abstractly and symbolically. Ideational fluency may occur in
formulating flexible and unusual conceptualisations. This style may manifested as a tendency to use a “story
telling” technique; the generation and use of synonyms, resemblances; the formulation of abstractions,
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 17
metaphors and analogies; the accommodation of unfamiliar or discrepant information; and an unusual and
creative perspectives.
Creativity
Most current assessment methodologies fail to fully capture the essence of creativity, but only aspects of the
construct, be it ideational fluency, intuition, personality, divergent thinking, transformational reasoning.
Creativity as such is not assessed by the CPP either, but the tendency to think things through in a rigorous
manner, to formulate alternatives, to apply unusual perspectives, to integrate diverse ideas and to abstract
information, all of which are measured by the CPP as transformational skills, underlie creativity.
Creativity, can be regarded as a descriptive term indicating the tendency and skill to reason, conceptualise and
act in an unusual, unique or ingenious way to make sense of, express, and apply one’s understanding
purposefully. In other words, it is about coming up with something new that has value. It involves many
factors of both a psychological and contextual nature. Opportunity, resources, circumstances, motivation,
cognition, personality, role taking behaviour, group dynamics and training may all play a role.
Most training and development interventions aimed at stimulating creativity too, are domain specific,
somewhat “analytical” and “left-brain” focused, and thus unlikely to transfer to a more general
orientation.
In stimulating creativity, it is useful to keep in mind that the key drivers of creativity and innovation are
probably interest and passion. Those that are energized by ideas and activities closely related to their sense
of personal purpose, are most likely to fully apply themselves in a psychologically integrated, consistent,
rigorous, long term and purposeful manner. Environmental pressures related to changing circumstances and
challenges also tend to trigger creativity in generating practical solutions.
Memory
The CPP does not measure memory ability, nor does it give an indication of short term and long term memory
“ability”. The CPP measures the extent by which a person relies on his/her memory and the memory strategies
that are used. Checking is one such a memory strategy, but is not particularly effective in all contexts. Checking
behaviour also tends to reflect internalised analytical values and the need for precision and certainty as well as
high technical standards. Excessively high scores on Checking on the CPP, reduces the sc ore on “Memory use”
without meaning that the person has a weak memory “ability”.
A memory approach is associated with the tendency to rely on previously acquired knowledge and experience
as well as a preference for familiar contexts. Those who show a memory orientation usually concentrate and
try to retain and recall information. They pursue accuracy and tend to follow task instructions to perform well.
A memory approach may also involve the early automation of rules and a tendency to continuously integrate
new information into existing knowledge structures. A metacognitive awareness of memory strategies and the
use of external reminders, practice, visualisations and associations, may also be involved.
Some individuals who achieve relatively high scores on memory on the CPP explain that they understood the
CPP to be a memory test. This can be interpreted qualitatively as it indicates a need for performance, and the
application of previous experience to an unfamiliar context. Such individuals are therefore likely to largely rely
on their knowledge, experience and seek certainty regarding task requirements.
Individuals from disadvantaged and culturally traditional backgrounds often develop memory skills as opposed
to a critical reasoning orientation. The CPP profiles of those who lack adequate educational exposure,
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 18
therefore often show relatively high scores on memory and or learning combined with an intuitive, random or
impulsive orientation.
When a Memory style is indicated by the CPP report, it is important to contextualise it by considering what it
appears in combination with. A memory orientation can constrain SST Level of Work capability if there are
other indications of a need for certainty (Explorative, Reflective, Structured Random, Impulsive styles).
However, combined with alternative stylistic preferences, the memory style will have the opposite effect and
actually facilitate SST level of work functioning. These styles are:





the Integrative style (many academics show an Integrative and Memory style combination),
the Intuitive / Quick Insight styles (those who remember and store large amounts of information
at a subconscious level as a basis for later intuitive decision making and creative ideas),
the Holistic style (big picture perspective capitalise on relevant detail / leverage - without getting lost
in the detail),
the Logical style (Memory and Logical styles combined, indicates sensitivity and a “right brain”
preferences); and
the Learning style (a tendency to rely on memory combined with curiosity and open-mindedness).
Judgement, Wisdom, Intuition
The above overlapping concepts primarily refer to cognition, but also tap into the holistic functioning of a
person. There is thus more involved than what is regarded as purely “intellectual”.
Wisdom is a generic term that refers to awareness, understanding and discernment. It permeates a person’s
perceptions, frames of reference, approach and emotional responses in general. It is an umbrella concept that
incorporates (and thus cannot linearly be equated with) factors such as educational background, analytical
reasoning skills, EQ, valuing systems, etc. Wisdom can best be understood in terms of consciousness factors.
The CPP does not directly measure Wisdom, but a number of the cognitive aspects involved.
The CPP measures Judgement in terms of: knowing what one does not know; identifying fuzzy elements;
clarifying vague issues optimally without resorting to quick closure or leaving too many elements open for too
long; “weighting” and prioritizing issues; contextualizing issues (big picture thinking); having a flexible plan in
mind; capitalizing on intuition; making a decision; integrating all feedback regarding the decision– thereby
continuously learning and improving own judgement.
Intuition can either be based on a well-developed knowledge base and extensive experience, or it can be
based on vague sources of information such as one’s own subconscious mind as well as collective awareness.
Intuition based on memory and experience is of a somewhat analytical in nature: it involves extracting
principles, likelihoods and averages from an internalized database. Intuition based on having one’s antennae
out to tune into collective or unconscious issues however, offer by far the greatest creative leverage and
insight. It requires sensitivity to and a deep sense of trust in one’s own subtle awarenesses.
A person’s Strategic capability refers to the generation and application of plans and perspectives to overcome
real life challenges in ingenious ways. It capitalizes on knowledge and experience; a “feel” for the context;
awareness of long term implications; integrative, systems thinking; an interest in ideas; the conceptualization
and communication of the ideas while accommodating to diverse perceptual angles and expectations / while
catering for the social implications related to energy and security. It also involves flexibility in adapting plans as
well as capabilities to justify and optimize the impacts of the strategies. Good judgement and an intuitive
capability are prerequisites for strategic capability. The CPP measures strategic thinking, as required by various
SST environments.
Current and potential SST level of work
The CPP calculates a person’s current and potential SST level of work by considering:
-
the unit of information used,
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 19
-
stylistic preferences.
judgement capability in decision making and
Job related preferences.
The result is indicated graphically:
The graph used in the CPP to represent a person’s ideal work environment can be explained as follows:
- the horizontal axis indicates each of the 5 levels of work
- a person’s scores for each particular level of work is calculated using a particular formula. For
example, a level 2 may require an explorative, analytical and memory orientation, whereas a
level 4 may require an integrative approach and good judgement.
- Different formulae are thus used to determine the “current” and “potential” scores of a
person for a particular levels of work.
- The “potential” score largely reflects the degree of learning potential regarding the levelspecific processing requirements.
- Five scores are calculated for “current” and 5 for “potential functioning – in terms of the
specified level of work formulae.
- The scores on current and potential are then graphically connected and superimposed on a
graph indicating the ideal requirements for each level (the red “required” line).
- At a level 1, scores close to 20 on the specified level 1 formula, are ideal for functioning at
that level. A score of around 40 for level 2, 60 for level 3, 70 for level 4 and 78 for level 5 are
used to plot the red “required” line. A 3 point difference is allowed to accommodate for
error.
- The points at which the line which indicates the person’s “current” functioning and his/her
“potential” functioning crosses the “required line” are indicative of the ideal work
environment.
To understand why a person’s profile has been linked to a particular work environment, it is also useful to look
at the “job-related” processing dimensions.
In the CPP, the job-related processing dimensions are represented as follows:
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 20
Work Related Processing Dimensions
The CPP reports on the job-related cognitive performance of the person in terms of four sets of
two dimensions. These are:
 Detail Complexity versus Dynamic Complexity - measuring personal preferences
in terms of dealing with COMPLEXITY
 Operational versus Strategic approach - measuring personal preferences in terms
of the person's FOCUS ON TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE information
 Short term versus Long term orientation - measuring personal preferences in
terms of the TIMEFRAME within which feedback is made available
 Structured versus Unstructured contexts in which a person functions optimally measuring personal preferences in terms of the DEGREE OF STRUCTURE
inherent in the work environment
Manny's scores on the work-related processing dimensions are depicted in the bar graphs
below:
A - Detail Complexity
B - Dynamic Complexity
54
48
The application of a detailed, specialist, technical approach
– where the focus is on facts, rules, linear sequences and
relationships. (High IQ may elevate this score – but not
necessarily, and an irritation with detailed technical work
may lower it.)
The application of an integrative approach – where the
focus is on underlying patterns and the interactions
between elements and systems (e.g. non-sequential
patterns, circularity, feedback systems, etc.)
C - Operational
D - Strategic
60
53
The application of a hands-on approach – where the focus
is on tangible, concrete, well-structured and practical
issues.
The application of an ideas oriented approach – where the
focus is on new concepts and ideas, creativity, learning,
quick insight, flexibility and intuition.
E - Short term
F - Long term
63
The application of a trial-and-error approach –
characterized by a preference for feedback and guidelines
and where the focus is on concrete actions and their
immediate effects within a familiar environment.
37
The application of a disciplined, consequential reasoning
approach – where the focus is on logical thinking, the
following through of arguments and the evaluation of the
effects of evolving situations.
A relatively high score may also reflect imprecision,
assumptions, quick closure, impulsivity and inadequate
planning.
G - Structured Context
H - Unstructured Context
59
A preference for order and structure (external or selfcreated) – where the focus is on guidelines, rules, linear
procedures as well as capitalizing on knowledge and
experience.
38
The preference for an unfamiliar environment – where
judgement is applied confidently and effectively in clarifying
vague, unstructured and ambiguous information.
Please note that the two dimensions in each set may actually complement each other – they are not necessarily
mutually exclusive. For example, having a high score on "Detail Complexity" does not mean
that the person cannot have an equally high score on "Dynamic Complexity." The same applies to the
“Structured-Unstructured” dimension. The scores on “Operational-Strategic” and “Short-Long Term”,
under normal circumstances, usually add up to approximately 100. Deviations can however, be interpreted
qualitatively.
See guidelines for interpretation of scores in the CPP Feedback manual
The dimensions in the left and the right hand columns can be describe as follows:




Detail complexity refers to a technical specialist orientation, and a tendency to work with detail.
Relatively high scores on Detail complexity may indicate a technical-specialist orientation, or may
reflect IQ-type intelligence, without necessarily reflecting a preference for detail. A relatively low
score on Detail complexity does not indicate a low IQ-type intelligence, but is likely to reflect a
dislike for detail.
Dynamic complexity refers to a right brain orientation and a tendency to synthesise information.
The Operational dimension: this indicates a tolerance, or preference of, the tangible. Many
people who have a natural right brain inclination and who have not had adequate educational
opportunities end up in detailed and routinized operational environments; yet they dislike the
routine and boring nature of those environments. This is quite a problematic issue. In some
career fields (e.g. accounting) candidates who may function at high levels cognitively, may also
show quite a tolerance for the operational.
The Strategic dimension to some extent reflects the ideas-orientation measured by some
personality measures. It reflects an interest in novelty and ideas, some degree of flexibility, may
show quick insight etc. It is interesting to note how many people in operational work
environments love the world of ideas and interesting angles. If they are not sufficiently
developed, or do not have an adequate knowledge base, they often perform best in
environments where they can deal directly with people – like sales, marketing, teaching, etc.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 21




A high score on the Short term approach is problematic. These people get anxious and lose a
great deal of their normal effectiveness when confronted with novelty. They tend to make
mistakes and assumptions and may have EQ problems or are undeveloped in terms of cognitive
discipline. Analytical skills training or formal education normally can be used to good effect here.
Alternatively, their skills could be utilised in highly structured environments where they have
access to almost immediate feedback on the quality of their inputs. A high score here is one that
exceeds 50 percentiles.
The Long term dimension refers to the tendency to carefully reason about things and follow the
arguments through in order to identify long term implications and consequences. These people
are usually well trained, consistent in their approach and enjoy logical challenges.
The Structured score is contaminated by the person’s need for external structure as well as
his/her tendency to effectively create structure. To verify whether the person can create
structure himself/herself, go to the unstructured score. A high score on structured is one that
exceeds 50 or 60 – but please bear in mind the big picture of the person’s profile.
The Unstructured dimension is perhaps the most valuable of all. EQ factors, such as confidence,
may impact here. Relatively lower scores on this dimension may be associated with youth,
uncertainty, having just started a new job, as well as a fear to apply own insights and trust own
gut level “ahas”. Should this score be completely out of proportion with the rest of the scores on
the right hand column, it may indicate serious judgement problems (that is, dealing with
vagueness and fuzziness, allocating weights to issues and prioritising these, and making
decisions). A low score here has a particular impact on business effectiveness.
The following stepwise guide provides a recipe according to which the dimensions on the bar graph can be
interpreted:
1. First look at the right hand column (dynamic, strategic, long term, unstructured …).
2. Find the highest score on the right. Because all 4 scores are based on the averaged subcomponents, the
assumption can be made that the person has the potential to comfortably function in terms of the highest
score on the right.
3. Ideally, all other scores on the right should be within 10 points of the highest score on the right.
4. Those that are 10+ points lower may indicate that the person has a problem in terms of that particular
dimension. Relatively lower scores for dimensions on the right, may indicate a problem / emotional or
motivational obstacle / dislike for managing that kind of information.
5. Those dimensions that are lower on the right can then be discussed and qualitatively interpreted in
terms of the following guidelines:
a. A lower score on Dynamic Complexity may indicate inadequate integrative and system thinking
skills. A relatively high score on Dynamic may indicate a somewhat “right brain” orientation,
interest in synthesising discrepant information, and a systems thinking orientation.
b. A lower score on Strategic may indicate a disinterest in the world of ideas or a relatively low
interest in learning in new and unfamiliar situations. A relatively high score on Strategic may
indicate an interest in the world of ideas, a learning orientation and a need for stimulation and
novelty.
c. A relatively low score on Long term, may indicate demotivation / low energy to spend effort on
rigorous reasoning to predict implications and consequences. A relatively high score here
indicates logical rigour and the interest and energy to carefully follow reasoning processes
through.
d. A lower score on Unstructured indicates that a person has a need for structure and guidelines
and experiences difficulty in dealing with vague and unfamiliar situations. A high score indicates
skill in capitalising on intuition to clarify and prioritise information in vague contexts.
6. The dimensions on the left (especially operational and short term) usually reflect the opposite scores of
those on the right (but not in all instances). If, for example, the person has a highest score of 60 (or 70) on
the right, operational and short term scores are not expected to exceed a score of 40 (or 30). Given this
guideline:
a. A person may obtain high scores for both Detail and Dynamic complexity which indicates a
capability and preference to deal with complexity of a detailed and dynamic nature.
b. If the Operational score is significantly higher than expected, the possibility exists that the person
tends to deal with both tangible as well as strategic information.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 22
c.
d.
A relatively high score on Short term indicates that the person can be expected to make many
mistakes and benefit from short term feedback. The “short term” score is associated with
impulsive decision-making, quick closure and errors.
A relatively high score on Structured (as compared to Unstructured) indicates a need for
structure. It may also indicate structuring skills.
Thus, for the interpretation of the section of the CPP report, the discussion above focused on aspects such as
the nature of the different work environments that individuals are cognitively equipped to deal with; typical
profiles of those registering a more operational level of work; specific requirements for functioning at the
higher levels of work; factors determining the matching of a person to a specific work environment, and some
guidelines for interpreting the bar graphs on the actual CPP report. In addition, a number of general guidelines
for the actual feedback process can be identified:
8.
Can the CPP be redone
Because the CPP capitalises on a person’s cognitive response to new and unfamiliar challenges, the first CPP is
in most instances the most valid – particularly if the person’s performance has not been affected by extreme
performance anxiety, demotivation or factors related to the test conditions. Note that a manageable degree of
performance anxiety may even improve concentration.
CPP re-assessment, especially where the first CPP can be regarded as valid, should therefore be postponed by
at least 4 to 5 years or more, if possible. Unless a person has been exposed to developmental opportunities,
reassessment may not even be necessary.
An exact time frame is difficult to specify. Although some people completely forget what the CPP is about
within 2 years or so – others remember much longer. The more unfamiliar the test content is with the second
assessment, the more valid its results.
However, at times it is useful to evaluate the impact of developmental initiatives, work exposure, maturity,
changes in attitude and interest on cognition, or to reassess those with invalid reports. The second set of CPP
results, has to be interpreted qualitatively though. Magellan can assist consultants in doing so.
Research comparing the results of a heterogeneous sample of 436 people who did the CPP more than once
showed a correlation of between 0.4 and 0.5 for the various processing competencies, between the first and
second sets of results. When “invalid” first sets of CPP results were eliminated from the sample, this
correlation further increased to between 0.5 and 0.63. The various processing skills were diversely affected by
reassessment. Some processing dimensions tend to improve with reassessment, such as Analytical skills. Other
dimensions are more resistant to change. These include the Potential level of work indication, the Units of
information or Complexity preferences, Integration and Judgement skills.
The Potential SST level of work as indicated by the first and second sets of CPP results correlated 0.5 for the
emotionally affected (invalid results) group and 0.63 for those with a valid first CPP report. In a sample of 96
post graduates who did the CPP twice within a two month period to assess the impact of cognitive training,
reassessment resulted in a 5% to 15% (partial eta square values of 0.05 - 0.15) difference between the first and
second sets of results for the trained and untrained groups combined. Although the second test result mostly
shows and improvement in scores, this is not necessarily the case.
It is important to take into account the reasons for redoing the CPP and apply professional judgement when
deciding if a delegate should be re-tested, all the while remembering that both sets of results will need to be
considered.
9.
When is a CPP report invalid
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 23
There are a number of factors that could render cognitive assessment results invalid. Acceptable test
conditions are important prerequisites for valid results. Internal factors such as anxiety, inadequate language
proficiency, emotional factors including demotivation, preoccupation, depression; illness, medication,
computer illiteracy, age and mental rigidity; long term involvement in routine work …etc. may also affect the
validity of the test results. The most common factors contributing to invalid results are, however, anxiety,
demotivation and language proficiency (that may be related to inadequate educational exposure).
In obvious cases, invalid reports will be flagged as: “Validity questionable”. It is, however, the task of the CPP
practitioner to clarify whether a report is valid or not. In extreme cases, invalid results will not be scored.
At times, however, invalid reports will not be identified by Magellan. Practitioners can determine the validity
of the report by checking for the following aspects:
To check for anxiety / preoccupation: this is usually indicated by relatively low scores on the “Pragmatic” and
“Judgement” CPP dimensions only, as compared to all other processing dimensions, plus a “Random” or
“Impulsive” style. (Please note that a person showing a “Random” or “Impulsive” style may well be unplanned,
reckless, rash etc. in unfamiliar environments. In other words, a Random or impulsive style may be a valid
reflection of the person’s response tendencies).
Although not “invalid”, the CPP results can be affected by a disadvantaged educational background. It may
result in relatively low scores on “Analytical”, “Logical” and “Judgement”, and may be inferred from
biographical information plus a CPP profile with relatively high scores on “Memory” and “Learning” (as
compared to the rest of the person’s processing scores). Such a profile indicates that the person is unlikely to
independently analyse issues by pulling them apart, and reasoning about further possibilities. Instead there
may be a tendency to memorise and capitalise on previous experience and knowledge. Low scores on analysis
usually result in the tendency to make many mistakes, show quick closure and make assumptions. Analytical
skills can be acquired relatively easily via cognitive training aimed at the internalisation of metacognitive
criteria.
CPP reports characterised by relatively low scores and “Logical reasoning” and “Abstraction” only, as
compared to the other scores on their reports, are not invalid, but indicate a personality- or culturally-based
resistant to transformational thinking. It indicates a preference for what is known and a tendency not to
apply critical thinking or to reconceptualise issues. It may also be an indication of demotivation and in
extreme cases, of depression.
The CPP profile of those who have done the same routine work for extended periods, may also reflect an
operational tendency. This may be due to rigidity or inflexibility in response to inadequate stimulation and
challenge, or boredom and disinterest.
The CPP has not been devised to diagnose neurological problems caused by trauma, long term stress,
substance abuse, psychiatric factors, etcetera. The CPP largely requires prefrontal lobe “executive” brain
functioning. Given the “holonic” nature of brain functioning, brain damage is likely to reduce overall
functioning on the CPP.
Alternative evidence of a person’s cognitive functioning is required in the case of an invalid report. This can be
obtained via a structured interview, an IQ-type test, performance appraisals, an assessment centre evaluation,
or other techniques / a combination of techniques. The invalid CPP report nevertheless offers valuable
information that can be interpreted qualitatively. The “potential SST level of work” indication can also be used
to gage current functioning in unfamiliar contexts.
10.
Challenges in cross-cultural cognitive assessment
The cross-cultural validity and adverse impact of cognitive assessment is a critical consideration in
Psychometrics.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 24
The concepts of “bias” and “fairness” apply here. Bias refers to the technical aspects, and fairness to the sociopolitical aspects of assesment. No assessment technique or cultural product for that matter, is “culture-free”.
The majority of cognitive assessment methodologies seem to be culturally loaded, including test
methodologies such as IQ-type tests, structured and unstructured interviews, assessment centres,
questionnaires and simulation exercises.
IQ tests are notoriously biased – as indicated by international research over the past 60 years. It was for this
very reason that the differential / IQ paradigm lost its popularity and was largely replaced by alternative
theoretical frameworks. Reasons for test bias in the case of IQ tests, are related to their:
(a) highly structured nature;
(b) specific content loadings;
(c) the requirement of the application of a logical-analytical style only;
(d) the measurement of convergent answers only;
(e) the reliance on specific educational exposure;
(f) contamination of speed and power factors;
(g) language factors; and
(h) the “blind” measurement of “verbal and non-verbal reasoning” without considering the processing
involved.
(i) These IQ tests also indirectly measure certain cognitive values (for example that of the importance of
balance, pattern, completion / finished business, linear structure, etc.) Should people who have not
internalised these specific values (given personal predisposition, educational exposure oand/or cultural
background) be measured, a lack of motivation to meet the test criteria, would lower their scores.
Some of the latest “learning potential” test methodologies, also heavily capitalise on the IQ paradigm. In other
words, these tests measure: analytical processing, linear-causal thinking, in highly structured environments
(where all the necessary information is provided), where “correct” answers are required (in other words,
convergent thinking), where the measurement of “speed” contaminates the measurement of “power”, where
short term memory is primarily relied on, and where the application of different thinking processes are not
accommodated for. These test therefore have a strong cultural loading. In addition to these typical IQ type
test requirements, the learning potential tests also include the requirement of “transfer” of already acquired
skills to new situations. The learning potental tests also rely somewhat less on educationally acquired
knowledge than the knoweldge-based IQ tests do.
The results of structured and unstructured interviews heavily depend on the skills of the interviewer.
Interrater reliability can therefore impact on the validity of the test results. The verbal skills, mannerisms,
warmth, and personality of the interviewee, as well as other individual and group differences, may be
interpreted as reflective of intelligence by the interviewer. Differences in cultural orientations, frame of
reference, attitudes and expectations can therefore significantly impact on the results on structured and
unstructured interviews.
Assessment centres pose similar challenges as interviews do. Again individual and group differences may
lower the interrater reliability involved.
Questionnaires rely on the self-insight and motivation of the person assessed and are normally provide highly
biased results.
The CPP is can be regarded as a simulation exercise or an “automated assessment centre” which has been
devised in such a way as to lower test bias, and enhance fairness in application in cross-cultural environments.
The following measures were taken:
 The CPP does not measure “verbal and non-verbal reasoning” such as IQ-type tests do. This is
because different gender, age and cultural groups apply completely different processes in getting
to the same answer. The CPP measures both the quality of the answer and the quality of the
processes involved (as opposed to a right or wrong answer), using different criteria for different
stylistic approaches, thereby accommodating for cultural differences.
 The CPP therefore measures the “processes” that are applied, directly.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 25











Other than IQ tests, the learning potential tools reflective of the IQ paradigm, structured and
unstructured interviews and assessment centres that are generally used, the CPP has a strong
theoretical foundation. It is based on a self-contained theoretical model where the constructs
involved have been assessed in terms of construct validity (both convergent and discriminant
validity). Such a theoretical model, does not exist for most other cognitive assessment
methodologies. Construct validity contributes further in eliminating test bias.
In the measurement of thinking skills by means of the current IQ-type tests and learning potential
tools, there is a strong requirement to apply logical-analytical thinking. This is only one style and
individuals and groups differ in terms of stylistic preferences. The CPP allows the person to apply
any of 15 different cognitive styles , such as Intuitive, Structured, Analytical, Metaphoric, and
Holistic styles. It therefore allows for people to approach problem solving situations in different
ways.
Most IQ and learning potential tests measure speed and power asif it were one construct. This is
misleading as speed and power are separate constructs. Cultures and individuals also differ in
terms of how important they regard speed, as speediness can be regarded as a “value”. The CPP
measures speed as a separate construct without it contaminating the processing scores. Not only
speed, but quick insight, pace control, quick closure, impulsivity, and a variety of other speedrelated constructs are measured by the CPP. Bias is thus further eliminated by the CPP in that it
accommodates for individual and group differences in terms of speed.
There are also individual and group differences in terms of preference for auditive vs visual inputs
and modes of processing. The CPP provides instructions and learning experiences which are
represented both auditively and visually – thereby further eliminating bias.
IQ type tests primarily measure “crystallised abilities”. In heterogeneous cultural environments,
especially where educational backgrounds of people differ, an indication of learning potential is,
however, more relevant than acquired knowledge. The CPP uses a test-train-test methodology,
draws learning curves, analyses and normalises these learning curves and looks at 16 additional
criteria to evaluate the degree to which a person is cognitively modifiable, and therefore shows
learning potential. It is probably the most indepth assessment of learning potential available. This
accommodation for learning potential further eliminates cross-cultural test bias.
Further “levelling” effects have been built into the CPP: these are related to the unfamiliar nature
of the assessment experience (the methodology is unfamiliar to all), as well as the everyday
content of the test items (the item contents are familiar to all). In other words, educational
background and experiences within particular cultural environments, would not unfairly benefit
anyone. A “tutorial” which the person can spend any amount of time on, further assists in setting
all at ease with what is required by the CPP assessment.
The computerised nature of the CPP contributes toward a standardised measurement result and
therefore greater reliability in the test results. Unlike interview and assessment centre results, it
does not unfairly discriminate because of personal appearance, warmth, language proficiency,
speed, self-confidence, knowledge etc. The results are interpreted by a scoring engine –
according to interactive rules – as opposed to a psychologist. The subjective element is thereby
further eliminated.
The language requirements of the CPP reflects 5-year schooling in mother tongue language
proficiency. To ensure that all test subjects have sufficient understanding of the language
requirements of the CPP, only people with a 12 year schooling exposure are assessed. The careful
manner in which “conceptualisation” is measured, without giving credit for grammar, spelling
and vocabularly, further contributes in terms of bias and fairness issues.
The CPP can be taken by people who are not computer literate, however, some exposure to a
particular pointing device is important. Unfamiliarity with computers may also cause anxiety
which may render the test results invalid. For those who have never worked with a mouse, an
electronic pen should be provided to manipulate the cards on the computer screen.
There are no right and wrong answers and no definite time limitations on the CPP. This reduces
test anxiety and contributes toward the elimination of bias.
The CPP is completely non-transparent and cannot be manipulated. This is because the
measurement of processing takes place behind the scenes, based on 10 000 potential points. Bias
reflecting motivation and values, is thus further eliminated.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 26
11.
The CPP research results
In this section of the FAQ manual, the research results that are described in the CPP Research Manual are
briefly summarised:
Concurrent validity
Table 1: The concurrent validity of the CPP as a measure of cognition / intelligence
CONCURRENT VALIDITY OF THE CPP: INTELLIGENCE TESTS
Studies
Samples
Sample
size
Findings
CPP and
WAIS
Financial sector
n = 100
CPP with WAIS Verbal (r = 0.52 to
r = 0.66; p < 0.001); with Nonverbal (r = 0.42 to r = 0.46; p <
0.001)
CPP and
WAIS
School-leavers from 3
different secondary
schools
n = 100
CPP with WAIS Verbal (r = 0.6; p =
0.001), Non-verbal (r = 0.45; p =
0.001)
CPP and
GSAT
Communications
sector – adults of
mixed gender, age,
race and educational
level
n = 63
CPP with GSAT Verbal (r = 0.32 to
r = 0.67; p > 0.01to p < 0.001);
Non-verbal (r = 0.31 to r = 0.46; p
< 0.01 to p < 0.001)
Banking group's
general leadership
development
programme
n = 44
CPP with CRTB (r = 0.3; p < 0.05 to
r = 0.4; p < 0.01)
(Prinsloo, 1999)
CPP, CRTB,
Panel
interviews
and
Assessment
centre
Study 5: Concurrent
validity: the CPP and the CPA
CPP and
CPA
Telecommunications:
80% from
management and
specialist positions
and 20% from
operational positions
n = 83
CPP with CPA styles:
(r = 0.45; p < 0.001)
CPP with CPA (SST):
- “current level of work” of both:
(r = 0.35; p = 0.002)
- “potential level of work” of both:
(r = 0.369; p < 0.001)
CPP and
CPA
Highly diverse sample
across all industries
n = 268
CPP “current level of work” with
CPA Style (p = 0.007)
Study 1: Concurrent
validity: the CPP and the
WAIS.
Techniques
used
(Prinsloo, 1996)
Study 2: Concurrent validity:
the CPP and the WAIS
(Prinsloo, 1995)
Study 3: Concurrent validity:
the CPP and the GSAT
(Prinsloo, 1996)
Study 4: Concurrent
validity: the CPP & the CRTB
(Prinsloo & Tamiel, 1999)
Study 6: Concurrent validity:
the CPP and the CPA - a
comparison of assessment
methodologies
CPP “potential level of work” with
CPA Style (p = 0.004)
(Prinsloo & Ashton, 2004)
CPP SST “current level of work”
with CPA SST “current” &
“potential/mode”
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 27
CONCURRENT VALIDITY OF THE CPP: INTELLIGENCE TESTS
Studies
Techniques
used
Samples
Sample
size
Findings
(r = 0.25 & r = .34; p < 0.007)
CPP SST “potential level of work”
with CPA “current” and “mode”
(r = 0.28 & r = 0.38; p < 0.001)
Table 2: The concurrent validity of the CPP: Personality tests
CONCURRENT CALIDITY OF THE CPP: PERSONALITY TESTS
Studies
Study 7: Concurrent
validity: the CPP and the
MBTI
Tests
Samples
Sample size
Findings
CPP and
MBTI
Banking: IT
managers
n = 22
MBTI: “T” and “J” with the CPP “Analytical”,
“Logical”, “Reflective” and “Explorative” styles:
(r = 0.31 to 0,43; p < 0.01)
CPP and
MBTI
Banking: IT
technical
managers
n = 123
MBTI: E-I dimension significantly predicted by
CPP “Metaphoric” (p < 0.01) also significantly
by “Intuitive”, “Integrative” and
“Analytical” styles
(Richter, 1995)
Study 8: Concurrent
validity: the CPP and the
MBTI
(Hardijzer, 2000)
MBTI S-N dimension significantly predicted by
CPP “Memory” (p = 0.005) as well as “Quick
Insight” and “Learning” styles
MBTI T-F dimension significantly predicted by
CPP “Explorative” style (p = 0.04)
MBTI J-P dimension significantly predicted by
CPP “Explorative” style (p = 0.02)
Study 9: Concurrent
validity: the CPP and the
MBTI
CPP and
MBTI
Insurance:
call centre
staff
n = 100
MBTI E-I differ in predicting CPP “Integration”
(p < 0.05)
MBTI J-P differ in predicting CPP “level of work”
(p = 0.03); CPP “Analytical” style (p = 0.02); CPP
“Integrative” style (p = 0.003); CPP
“Judgement” (p < 0.026). J consistently
correlated with higher CPP scores.
(Van Heerden, 2006)
MBTI INTP versus ENTJ significantly differed in
predicting CPP “level of work”; “Pragmatic”,
“Integration”, “Complexity” (p < 0.05). ENTJ
correlated with higher CPP scores.
Study 10: Concurrent
validity: the CPP and the
FAQ: CPP & LOI
CPP and
MBTI
Various
Corporates
Diverse
samples
qualitative
MBTI: S & N with CPP “Intuitive” style
(both positive; p < 0.01)
MBTI: T with CPP “Logical” style
Page 28
CONCURRENT CALIDITY OF THE CPP: PERSONALITY TESTS
Studies
Tests
Samples
MBTI
Sample size
studies
(positive correlation; p = 0.004)
MBTI: F with CPP “Logical” Style
(negative correlation; p = 0.007)
MBTI: E with CPP “Analytical” style
(positive correlation; p = 0.03)
(Richter, 1992)
Study 11: Concurrent
validity: the CPP & 16PFI /
15FQ / OPP
Findings
CPP and
15FQ
RSA
Insurance
group
n = 30
15FQ: B-factor with many different CPP
dimensions: (r = 0.6; p < 0.001)
CPP and
16 PF
Banking
n = 82
16PF: “Intelligence”, “Ego strength”,
“Shrewdness”, “Compulsivity” and “Free
floating anxiety” with various CPP dimensions:
(r = 0.3 to r = 0.55; p = 0.01)
CPP &
15FQ
Petrochemical
industry:
specialist
engineers
n = 1000
Preliminary findings: results indicate significant
correlations between the 2 instruments and
differentiate between performers and nonperformers. Final results are awaited.
(Prinsloo & Tredoux, 2003)
Study 12: Concurrent
validity: the CPP & 16PF
(Prinsloo, 2002)
Study 13: Concurrent
validity: the CPP & 15FQ
(Botha, study in progress)
Table 3: The concurrent validity of the CPP: Emotional Intelligence
CONCURRENT VALIDITY: CPP & EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Study
Study 14:
Concurrent
validity: the CPP &
EIQ
(Queripel &
Thompson, 2003)
Tests used
Sample
CPP and the
Managerial 360
degree
Emotional
Intelligence
Questionnaire
(EIQ).
UK
Telecommunications
Sample
size
n = 171
CONCLUSIONS
CPP’s SST “current work environment”
with EQI’s C (“Motivation”) (negative
correlation; p < 0.01) and B (“Emotional
resilience”) (negative correlation; p < 0.05)
CPP’s SST “potential work environment”;
“Detail complexity”, “Dynamic
complexity:, “Strategic”, “Long term” &
“Unstructured” with EQI factor C
(“Motivation”) (negative correlation; p <
0,05) and EIQ “Emotional resilience” (p <
0.05)
Criterion validity
Table 4: The predictive / criterion validity of the CPP
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 29
PREDICTIVE / CRITERION VALIDITY OF THE CPP
Study
Study 15:
Predictive
validity of the
CPP in terms of
job performance
Tests used
Sample
CPP and Job
performance
ratings
Accounting: Tax &
Assurances
CPP and 360
degree
performance
appraisals
Accounting: trainee
accountants
Sample
size
n = 69
Assurance (n = 30) – no significant correlation
Tax (n = 39 ) CPP “Exploration”,
“Categorisation”, “Integration”, and “Current
SST level of work” with job-related
competencies: “Business development”,
“People development” and “Business process
management” (r = 0.316 to r = 0.398; p < 0.05
to p < 0.01)
(Prinsloo, 2006)
Study 16:
Predictive
validity of the
CPP in terms of
job performance
(Prinsloo, 2005)
Findings
n = 40
360 degree with CPP: “Logical-analytical”,
“Metacognitive awareness”, “Integration”,
“Complexity”, “Verbal conceptualisation”,
“Learning”, “Judgement” (r = 0.42 to r = 0.52; p
< 0.001)
With CPP “Impulsivity” (r = -0.44; p < 0.001)
Study 17:
Predictive
validity of the
CPP in terms of
job performance
(Prinsloo, 2006)
CPP and 360
degree
performance
appraisal
Accounting: 5-year
study of diverse
group of trainee
accountants
n = 752
Performance appraisal with CPP:
“potential for SST level 3”
“level
1
functioning”
(negative
correlation)
“Quick closure” (negative correlation)
“Analysis”
“Logical follow through”
the “Transfer” of principles
“Structuring” and “Strategies for
complexity”
“Metacognitive awareness”
the absence of a “Random” or
“Impulsive” approach
(all p < 0.01)
Regression: Best predictors of performance:
CPP “potential for SST level 3” followed by
absence of SST level 1 functioning and absence
of “quick closure”
Study 18:
Predictive
validity of the
CPP in terms of
job performance
(Moutafi, 2004)
CPP, OPQ and
360 degree job
performance
appraisal
UK
Telecommunications
n = 150
CPP with “simulated performance” (r = 0.23; p
< 0.01); “self-rated performance”(r = 0.17; p <
0.05); “salary” (r = 0.03)
Study 19:
Predictive
validity of the
CPP in terms of
job performance
CPP and
performance
appraisal
OPQ “Openness: Traditional” with simulated
performance (r = 0.33; p < 0.001);
“Agreeableness: Decisiveness” with simulated
performance (r = 0.23; p < 0.01)
Business Consulting
n = 38
14 significant correlations between CPP scores
and performance appraisal results (p < 0.05 – p
< 0.01).
Highest correlation between Consultants with
CPP current SST level 3 with potential for SST
(De
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 30
PREDICTIVE / CRITERION VALIDITY OF THE CPP
Study
Tests used
Sample
Sample
size
Villiers, 2004)
Study 20: The
predictive
validity of the
CPP in terms of
job performance
(Prinsloo, 2004)
Findings
level 4 as rated by HR corporate clients
CPP and
performance
appraisal
Retail sector, all
levels of work
n = 178
- “Job category” with CPP “levels of work”,
“Analytical”, “Structuring”, “Logical
reasoning”, “Verbal conceptualisation”,
“Memory”, “Integration”, “Judgement”, and
“Learning” (p < 0.001 to p < 0.01)
- Performance appraisal with CPP “balanced
approach”, “upper-left quadrant of brain
profile” (r = 0.329; p < 0.000)
Study 21: The
predictive
validity of the
CPP in terms of
job performance
CPP and
performance
appraisals of 2
years running
Retail, all levels,
diverse group
n = 780
Actual job level with CPP “current” and
“potential levels of work” (p < 0.000)
The 2006 performance results for actual job
level 4 with CPP “Explorative” (p = 0.03),
“Memory” (p = 0.03), “Reflective” (p = 0.029)
styles
(Prinsloo &
Sebata, 2009)
Performance appraisals (2007) for actual job
Level 2 with CPP “Analytical” (p < 0.01),
“Logical” (p = 0.017) and “Impulsive”
(negative; p = 0.03) styles
Performance appraisal (2007) actual job level 4
with CPP “Impulsive” (p < 0.001)”, “Intuitive”
(p < 0.01), “Memory” (p = 0.038), “Reflective”
(negative; p < 0.001)
Study 22: The
predictive
validity of the
CPP in terms of
job performance
(Prinsloo &
Tredoux, 2003)
Study 23 : The
predictive
validity of the
CPP and tertiary
academic
achievement
CPP; 15FQ;
assessment
centre, a
“talent grid”
consisting of a
360 degree
competency
based ratings
Insurance group in
RSA & UK
CPP and the
academic pass
rate of trainee
accountants on
their CA exams
as tracked over
5 years.
RSA, Accounting:
Pre-selected
samples: minimum
CPP results of
potential for SST
level 3
n = 150
CPP “Judgement”, “Learning potential”,
“Analytical”, “Pragmatic”, “Verbal
conceptualization”, “current SST level of work”
with Assessment Centre competencies (p <
0.01 – p < 0.001), with “Conceptual capacity”
(r = 0.57; p = 0.000),
with the Talent Grid’s “job-related
performance” (r = 0.27 to r = 0. 34; p < 0.01 to
p < 0.001) and Talent grid “potential” (p <
0.01)
n = 752
86,5% of the total pre-selected sample passed
their CA exam compared to the 50% national
average. For trainee accountants from
disadvantaged backgrounds, pass rate of CA
exam improved from 4% (before CPP selection
of groups) to pass rate of 64% (of CPP selected
group from disadvantaged backgrounds).
(Prinsloo &
Sipsma, 2005)
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 31
PREDICTIVE / CRITERION VALIDITY OF THE CPP
Study
Study 24: The
predictive
validity of the
CPP and
educational
performance in
the tertiary
educational
environment
Tests used
CPP, 16PF,
Neethling Brain
Profiler, Figure
classification,
Maths, English
and Science
tests
Sample
RSA: Bridging
students in
Engineering
Sample
size
n = 59
Findings
First year pass rate with CPP “Logical”,
“Analytical”, “Integration”, “Exploration”,
“Structuring” and “Learning”: (r = 0.45 t 0.50; p
< 0.001)
First year academic performance with CPP
"Strategies to manage complexity" (r = 0.6; p =
0.000)
Pass rate with Science test (r = 0.494; p <
0.000), Maths (r = 0.393; p = 0.03); Figure
Classification test (r = 0.276; p = 0.03);
Neethling Brain Profile (r = -0.1335; p = 0.591)
(Farquharson,
1998)
Stepwise regression analysis: best predictor of
pass rate is CPP “Strategies for Complexity” (r
= 0.6; p = 0.000); followed by Science and
Maths knowledge tests
Construct Validity
Table 5: IC results of 6 CPP processing constructs
Processing dimensions
Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha (α)
Exploration
0.767 – 0.790
Analysis / Linking
0.838 – 0.852
Structuring & Integration
0.822 – 0.886
Transformation / Logical & lateral reasoning
0.853 – 0.893
Memory
0.653 – 0.889
Metacognition
0.933 – 0.954
Table 6: CFA results of 6 CPP processing constructs
Processing constructs
RMSEA
CFI
TLI
SRMR
Exploration / Focusing &
selecting
0.050
0.897
0.871
0.042
Analysis / Linking
0.133
0.817
0.765
0.070
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 32
Structuring & Integration
0.161
0.901
0.851
0.058
Transformation / Logical
& lateral reasoning
0.094
0.961
0.949
0.045
Memory
0.072
0.961
0.953
0.040
Metacognition
Multi-dimensional
Table 7: CFA analysis of 19 processing constructs at an intermediate level of organisation, as reflected
by the CPP report
Processes reflected in the CPP report
RMSEA
CFI
SRMR
**Explorativeness
0.149
0.562
0.152
Discrimination (in terms of relevance)
0.029*
0.375
0.167
Exploration
0.076*
0.182
0.185
Linking / Analysis
0.208
0.906*
0.070*
Rule orientation
0.192
0.727
0.096
**Categorisation
0.122
0.678
0.084*
Complexity
0.027*
0.392
0.232
Integration
0.032*
0.910*
0.044*
Integrative style
0.038*
0.401
0.152
Abstract Conceptualisation
0.067*
0.778
0.127
Logical proof
0.135
0.889*
0.051*
Follow though of logical processes
0.138
0.840
0.050*
Memory use
0.085*
0.930*
0.043*
Memory strategies
0.054*
0.779
0.111
Learning
0.021*
0.997*
0.014*
***Judgement
0.150
0.639
0.125
Metacognitive awareness
0.158
0.855
0.064*
Metacognitive self-monitoring
0.120
0.943*
0.042*
Metacognitive strategies
0.075*
0.546
0.076*
*relatively acceptable model fit
**Both Explorativeness and Exploration contain certain effective and ineffective exploration skills and are not unidimensional. Categorisation: also contains effective and ineffective strategies in grouping and ordering information. A
number of the deleted items indicate repetitive card movements.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 33
*** Judgement: although this dimension does not appear robust, various predictive analyses have indicated it as the best
predictor (of all CPP, IQ and Personality test constructs), ( of executive judgement.
Table 8: CFA Model fit of the processing dimensions
Processing dimension
RMSEA
CFI
TLI
SRMR
Effective exploration
0.145
0.752
0.627
0.062
Over-exploration
0.181
0.423
0.278
0.115
Analysis
0.039*
0.982*
0.975*
0.018*
Structuring
0.110
0.895
0.842
0.049*
Logical reasoning
0.112
0.918*
0.895*
0.046*
Integration
0.041*
0.993*
0.978*
0.011*
Judgement
0.035*
0.995*
0.986*
0.014*
Learning
0.000*
1.000*
1.003*
0.002*
*Acceptable model fit
Reliability
Table 9: CPP Reliability studies
CPP RELIABILITY
Study
Research approach
Sample
Findings
Study 31: CPP inter-rater
reliability
Inter-rater reliability of
four psychologists,
trained to score the
manual card game of the
CPP (a previous
uncomputerised version
of the CPP without a
learning component)
Diverse samples:
Working adults
(n = 107)
School leavers
(n = 91)
Total (n = 198)
CA (Coefficient Alpha), ICR (Internal
Consistency Reliability), SBSHR (SpearmanBrown Split Halves reliability), KR-20 (KuderRichardson 20) (r > 0.96)
The test-retest reliability
of the CPP.
Correlations.
Test takers reassessed
(n = 436)
Emotionally
affected
( n = 246)
CPP only valid on first assessment given
unfamiliarity of the task.
(Prinsloo, 1992)
Study 32: CPP test-retest
reliability
(Prinsloo, Korf & Jooste,
2009)
- The total group (n = 436): “Pragmatic” (r =
0.517), “Exploration” (r = 0.510) ,
“Analytical” (r = 0.568), “Rule orientation” (r
= 0.580), “Integration” (r = 0.591),
“Learning” (r = 0.626), “current level of
work” (r = 0.628) and “potential level of
work” ( r= 0.630).
- The emotional group (n = 246):“Rule
orientation” (r = 0.507), “Integration” (r =
0.535),“Judgement” (r = 0.543), “Learning
1” (r = 0.550), “current level of work” (r =
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 34
CPP RELIABILITY
Study
Research approach
Sample
Findings
0.545) and “potential level of work” (r =
506).
Study 33: Test-retest CPP
results
Anova analysis
n = 96
(Prinsloo, 2011)
Significant differences between first and
second sets of CPP scores (p < 0.01 to p <
0.001) when re-assessed within a month,
pre- and post-assessment combined with
metacognitive training. A 5% - 15% increase
in CPP scores with re-assessment. But the
CPP cannot validly be assessed more than
once.
Table 10: CPP Equivalence results
EQUIVALENCE OF CPP
Study
Biographicals
Sample
Sample size
Findings
Study 36: The
cross-cultural
validity of the CPP
Race
Diverse sample
across industries in
RSA: Subjects
paired in terms of
age, gender and
educational
qualifications
n = 130
MANOVA: Education showed
significant correlation with CPP scores
Race
RSA Trainee
accountants: 4
race groups
n = 752
No significant differences between
CPP scores of groups in terms of
preferences (styles) and capabilities
(level of work)
Language
RSA Banking
employees:
Afrikaans, English,
African (diverse)
n = 155
Language group and “cognitive style”:
negligible differences between groups
(Prinsloo, 2004)
Study 37: Crosscultural
assessment of
cognition using the
CPP
Paired race groups showed no
difference in CPP scores (except on
Metaphoric style)
(Prinsloo, 2006)
Study 38: Language
group differences
and the CPP
Language group and SST “current
levels of work”: No statistically
significant differences
(Prinsloo, 2009)
Language group and “potential levels
of work”: No significant differences
Study 39: Gender
comparison in
financial industry
Gender
Insurance industry
n = 122 males;
n = 26 females
Females generally obtained
significantly higher scores than males
on the various CPP competencies (p <
0.05)
(Prinsloo, 2003)
Females showed a significantly higher
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 35
level of “learning potential” than
males (p < 0.01)
Study 40: Gender
differences in CPP
& CPA results
Gender (CPA
& CPP)
Diverse corporate
sample: gender
groups compared
n = 268
Differences in results between gender
groups:
CPA, significant differences (p =
0.0003) between gender groups
CPP, the only gender difference
found, was on “structuring” (nonsignificant)
Gender
RSA Trainee
accountants:
n = 752:
Females generally achieved marginally
higher scores than males on a number
of CPP processing dimensions (nonsignificant differences)
(Prinsloo & Ashton,
2004)
Study 41: Gender
findings in the
accounting sector
(355 Females, 397
Males)
(Prinsloo, 2006)
Study 42: Gender
differences on the
CPP
Gender
RSA banking
employees.
Relatively equal
gender distribution
n = 155
No significant gender differences
were found on: “cognitive style”,
“information processing
competencies”, “current level of
work” or “potential level of work”
Gender, age,
race,
educational
level,
educational
field
Diverse corporate
groups
N = 28 300 (See
distribution below)
Significant differences were found
between all biographical groups. See
discussion.
(Prinsloo, 2009)
Study 43: CPP
scores of various
gender, age, race,
educational level,
career field groups
*Table 29
(Prinsloo & Becker,
2012)
Scores / T-scores / Percentiles / Percentages?
What are the scores reflected by the CPP?
CPP raw scores do not make sense as it counts instances in which certain criteria are met, for example: “action
X after action Y and before action Z in the presence of A”. Some of these raw scores measure preferences,
some tendencies and some capabilities. These scores are all averaged and normed, using t-scores.
The t-scores are then combined and weighted in different ways to calculate “higher level” scores. The latter
scores are then used to calculate even higher level scores. Seeing that the higher level / more abstract and
integrative scores are based on algorithms using t-scores, their scores no longer strictly reflect t-scores, but are
simply “scores” – usually distributed between 20 and 80 with an average around 50. The “higher” the level at
which scores are calculated, the narrower the distribution of those scores. Most of the CPP scores, that are
reflected by the CPP report show distributions between 20 and 80.
The Styles and the SST levels of work are calculated at the highest and most generalised levels in that many
competency scores are incorporated and are therefore reported on as “classes” instead of scores.
To quote from a recently published article by Prinsloo and Barrett (2013):
However, the assessment of counts (frequencies of occurrence), ordered scores, and classes (types)
are all properties of the CPP. We may even retain the use of quantitative arithmetic operations for
convenience (while implicitly acknowledging the limitations of the assumed precision). These
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 36
properties set it apart from other tests of learning/performance potential which do not form their
judgments based upon the autonomous acquisition and empirical, objectively applied, rule-based
scoring of an individual’s performance on one or more relevant tasks. This objectivity in scoring
enables us to seek comparability with other assessments of the same attributes, in order to
demonstrate substantive equivalence between same-attribute assessments.
It should also be pointed out that the CPP scores are not linear in nature. In other words, a score of 30 on a
dimension like Analytical differs quantitatively and qualitatively from a score of, say, 70 on Analytical in that
different analytical strategies are used and different levels of complexity are involved by these two scores.
As explained above, the CPP scores that are not purely t-scores, but are calculated using t-scores, and referred
to as “scores”.
However, the SST level of work outcomes, is somewhat more reflective of “percentiles”, even though the
scores used for level of work calculations, are not strictly converted according to t-score-percentile conversion
tables. For example:
o A t-score of 77 can be compared to a percentile of 99.6
o A t-score of 68 is comparable to a percentile of 96
o A t-score of 58 is comparable to a percentile of 82
For the purposes of linking CPP scores to SST levels of work, where, for example, roughly only 4% of individuals
show capacity / potential capacity for SST level 4 environments, the CPP scores (that are close to normalised tscores) can be “converted” to percentiles, where a CPP score of around 69 indicates a percentile of
approximately 96, which is roughly the top 4% of the population. An average CPP score of around 60 on the
cognitive requirements of the SST Tactical Strategy / Alternative Paths environment, is expected to be
achieved by approximately 15% of those in the working environment and also represents approximately 15%
of positions – mostly of a managerial or professional nature. See the graph below.
So although CPP scores largely reflect “averaged t-scores” with a slightly more leptokurtic distribution than
that of normal t-scores, a somewhat percentile oriented approach has been used in the calculation of SST
levels.
The following graph compares the various distribution units that are typically used in psychometrics.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 37
What do the distributions of the CPP scores look like?
Normalised t-scores represent a normal curve primarily distributed from 20 to 80.
The CPP scores are calculated using t-scores and the distribution may be marginally narrowed or more
leptokurtic. Their distributions normally approximate a normal curve. The majority of the CPP processing
competency scores are roughly between 20 and 80 with averages around 50. However, extreme scores of 1 –
100 can still be achieved on the processing competencies . The scores that are calculated at higher / more
generalised levels show distributions between approximately 30 to 75 although lower and higher scores are
still possible.
Norms
A database of approximately 250 000 CPPs existed in 2014. Various norm groups have been devised and
compared over the past 20 years. Cognadev currently used one of two norm groups, but intends switching
over to the large, diverse norm group of n = 80 000 in 2015. It has been compiled to include all genders, age
groups, fields of interest, levels of employment, ethnic groups, capability levels and cognitive preferences (the
latter has been determined using previous norm group information). The majority of test subjects included in
the sample are South African, but a fair proportion are from the Americas, UK and Europe, Australia, Asia and
Africa. Given the use of the SST model, a generalised and global norm group is required to ensure the
appropriate plotting of all profiles across all work environments.
Further research
The CPP scoring engine and report writer are currently being reprogrammed to create a fully web enabled
version. This may resolve current compatibility challenges as new operational systems continually become
available. The web-enabled version 4 of the CPP is likely to become available during 2013.
A number of further research studies are also in the pipeline.
12.
How to develop thinking skills
Various tests of cognitive capability, including the CPP and LOI, provide indices of potential for cognitive
growth. But what does it mean and how can it be developed?
Learning Potential refers to the cognitive modifiability and/or adaptability of a person to new challenges and
applications. It is a dynamic construct which:
-
cannot be explained in terms of either nature or nurture - but both;
not in terms of either motivation or capability - but both;
not only in terms of either biology, psychology or spirituality - but all of these constructs;
not in terms of either capability or confidence – but both; and
it cannot be linked to a specific time frame.
The integrative nature of Learning Potential thus requires a developmental approach that capitalizes on both
Motivation and Cognition, by:




Providing a most fertile environment for the person to grow in: the person should find it interesting,
fun, stimulating; and reinforcing.
Frequent success experiences also build confidence and interest.
Although challenging, the environment should be safe and non-threatening. Exposure to new
learning challenges should be approached systematically.
A mentor or facilitator should guide the focus of the educational exposure to continually stretch the
person’s understanding, without the learning content becoming too unfamiliar, complex or
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 38






intimidating. In other words, progress should be guided by the concept of the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD) of Vygotsky.
Kind and reinforcing feedback from the facilitators and co-learners is important to enhance the
internalization of thinking skills.
The emphasis should always be on the internalization of metacognitive criteria – and not just on the
content of the learning material. The “how” (metacognition) is almost more important than the
“what” (content) of the learning experience. This means that the person has to internalize certain
questions until these are guide own thinking. A number of important metacognitive criteria are listed
below.
Another fundamental skill that enhances learning involves the acquisition of structuring skills – such
as mind maps, pictures, flow diagrams, summaries, lists, etc. This is because understanding results
from meaningfully ordering information. This will optimize the activation of intuitive and creative
processing as well.
Remember that the bigger and more varied the skills base is, the bigger the frame of reference is,
and the easier further growth becomes. A varied and rich exposure is thus valuable.
Individuals capitalize on different learning orientations, and the learning experience should be
designed in a manner to accommodate these differences in approach. Kolb and Fry’s Experiential
learning model provides an ideal basis for the design of educational inputs. They indicate four
preferences on 2 axes: (a) concrete experience, (b) observation of and reflection on that experience,
(c) formation of abstract concepts based upon the reflection and (d) testing the new concepts (Kolb.
D. A. and Fry, R. (1975) Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. in C. Cooper (ed.), Theories
of Group Process, London: John Wiley) and ( Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.: Prentice Hall.)
The most important factor that contributes to cognitive growth, however, is if a person discovers
something which s/he is passionately interested in. This normally involves something which is closely
linked to a sense of personal purpose and meaning for that particular individual and has a motivating
and energizing impact on the person, regardless of external factors such as his/her circumstances or
capabilities.
The development of analytical skills, can take place according to the following procedure:
-
-
-
Assess a number of test subjects using the CPP / LOI to identify their metacognitive strengths and
weaknesses
Carefully select a group of 8 – 15 individuals who are dealing with similar work / educational content
according t the purposes of the training initiative.
Analyse the work content in terms of certain criteria, starting with typical challenges and problems.
Allocate a “metacognitive voice” to each individual in the group. Start off by capitalising on their
personal strengths.
Allow them to introduce “themselves” / their ”voice” to the rest of the group in a creative manner. An
object / tool can also be used to further emphasise each voice.
Each voice now has the authority to halt the problem solving process whenever they feel that the
group is neglecting that particular metacognitive criterion in solving a problem.
Deal with the familiar work related challenges.
The facilitator’s role is primarily to repeat and emphasise the metacognitive voices and to reinforce
individuals for the assertion of their voice.
Once it is clear that the group members are applying all the voices, each member is allocated his / her
weakest voice. That individual has to introduce their new voice and apply it in a similar manner as
previously done.
Much reinforcement by the facilitator and group members is required. The use of “process
discussion” (e.g. what happened when he said this, and she reminded him of that…).
Group members then need to apply the voices in the work or classroom context and complete at least
6 assignments which describes the extent to which a particular voice has improved the quality of their
work or been useful in solving a problem or assisting another person.
Each person can also create a customised reminder of certain voices that they can place on their desk.
The following metacognitive criteria primarily guide the following processing functions:
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 39
The metacognitive voices need to be labled in a way that the training group will understand its meaning. For
example, certain groups will respond best to a lable of “purposefulness” whereas a less sophisticated group
will prefer the lable “why”.
The following examples may be useful:
RELEVANCE
Select and focus on pertinent information.
Typical questions to ask yourself:
“Am I not focusing on irrelevant information?”
“Is this aspect important?”
“Is this not confusing the matter?”
“Have I taken all relevant information into consideration?”
CLARITY
Distinguish between clear and vague bits of information in order to enhance your
understanding of the situation.
Typical questions to ask yourself:
“Which facts or bits of information will shed more light on this matter?”
“What aspects are still vague and need further investigation?”
ACCURACY
Deal with information in a precise and correct manner.
Typical questions to ask yourself:
“Which elements am I working with here and what are their exact specifics?”
“Do I have evidence to support my ideas?”
“Are my assumptions not colouring my view on this matter?”
NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 40
Ascertain how components are related to one another.
Typical questions to ask yourself:
“Exactly how are these elements related?”
“Is there a causal / functional / mutually reinforcing relationship among these elements?”
“Is this relationship necessary or sufficient?”
SYSTEMATISATION
Work in a methodical and step-wise manner.
Typical questions to ask yourself:
“Can I conceptualise this problem in a more ordered or systematic fashion?”
“Are there alternative ways in which I can represent this issue?”
COHERENCE & MEANINGFULNESS
Avoid fragmented thinking. Construct a comprehensible big picture.
Typical questions to ask yourself:
“How does one make sense of this issue?”
“Are there alternative ways in which this issue can be conceptualised?”
“Are there any untidy loose ends?”
LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION
Ascertain the appropriate level of abstraction at which the issue should be
approached.
Typical questions to ask yourself:
“How far is this formulation removed from the concrete reality?”
“Should I be more general or be more specific?”
PURPOSEFULNESS
Keep the aim / goal in mind.
Typical questions to ask yourself:
“Why am I focusing on this issue?”
“What am I trying to achieve?”
“Have I considered all possibilities for changing the structure or are there alternative
ways of achieving the same goal?”
APPROPRIATENESS & APPLICABILITY
Ensure that the solution fits the problem.
Typical questions to ask yourself:
“How can I adapt existing solutions to meet new requirements?”“Is this a feasible /
viable / realistic / practical solution to the problem at hand?”
13.
Benefits and recommendations
Cognitive assessment results show predictive validity in the work and educational contexts and provide useful
guidelines for HR practices such as selection, placement, succession, career guidance, development and team
compilation – especially where the assessment results have been linked to the performance requirements of
work environments.
Cognitive results are best used in a holistic manner – i.e. in combination with other assessment results.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 41
The ethical use of assessment results is important. It does not merely inform decisions, but should be used to
the benefit the test subject as well as to the organisation. The CPP and LOI provide developmental guidelines
to optimise cognitive training results.
Although a prerequisite for performance in most work environments, intellectual functioning is transcended
and guided by one’s level of consciousness, which determines the manner in which cognition is applied.
FAQ: CPP & LOI
Page 42