Employers must contend with skills gaps even as they shift from degree requirements to merit-focused hiring. Aptitude tests are emerging as a key tool to identify potential and bridge the divide.
What you should know
- Sectors like manufacturing, healthcare, government, and logistics face severe talent shortages — not just due to outdated views of certain jobs, but also declining basic skills and fewer young people pursuing vocational training. Even with skills-based hiring on the rise, many companies still struggle to find enough entry-level workers.
- Standardized cognitive assessments, or aptitude tests, help employers identify candidates’ potential rather than just their existing skills or credentials. These tests are widely used, improve quality of hire, reduce turnover, and make hiring fairer by focusing on ability over background.
- For aptitude testing to be effective and compliant, tests must be job-related, validated, and combined with other hiring tools (like structured interviews). Employers should monitor for bias, provide accommodations, interpret results carefully, and use tests as one part of a holistic selection process to build stronger, more adaptable teams.
Many industries are running into a particular hiring problem. No, it’s got nothing to do with AI, the hiring process, or how HR teams go about recruitment (although there may be issues there, too). It’s that there just aren’t enough qualified individuals around to hire.
Skills gaps are plaguing a number of industries — healthcare, the public sector, and most evidently (if we’re going by press coverage), manufacturing.
It doesn’t help that math and reading skills are at an all-time low. A lack of basic skills among workers means companies need to spend more time developing talent on the job — which means investing more resources into new hires. And if these same roles are faced with high turnover (which, if we’re referring to the high-volume entry level roles in manufacturing and healthcare, typically they are) that means both time and money that’s flowing out of a company and down the nearest incorrectly-installed drain pipe (no offense meant to any apprentice plumbers).
Even industries that are switching from relying on degrees to skills-based hiring to broaden the talent pool and fill positions are finding that, even though they are drawing in more skilled workers, they still need more entry-level hires to fill the gap.
In many industries that are investing in teaching hires on the job, it’s important to find workers who can learn the work, enjoy doing it, and do it right. That is, their potential. In other terms, their aptitude.
That’s where aptitude testing comes in.
Growing skills gaps
In the manufacturing industry, the number of open positions is outpacing the number of qualified individuals available to fill those positions, in what has become known as the manufacturing skills gap. Because of a negative, outdated view of factory work as dirty, a lack of emphasis on blue collar career paths in high school, and subsequently a lack of young people pursuing apprenticeships, there are simply not enough trained individuals available to pursue these positions.
Manufacturing is not the only industry facing a skills gap. Healthcare, the public sector, construction and infrastructure, logistics and transportation, and financial services are all facing skills shortages.
Skills gaps are faced in industries that require high school degrees, but also in fields that typically hire individuals with a college education. In the US, there’s estimated to be a shortage of 5.3 million college-educated workers by 2032 — especially in the fields of nursing, teaching, and engineering.
On-the-job training
Many industries and employers already heavily emphasize on-the-job training for many roles — like for 911 dispatcher roles (where training is multiple months long), and entry-level manufacturing positions.
What’s important here is not that these individuals have the exact skillset needed for these roles — but that they’re trainable, and have the right mindset and dedication to pursue the long training involved.
However, when you hire entry-level workers who don't possess the right skills to be successful in on-the-job training, you end up wasting both money and time, in addition to the opportunity cost of not training someone who would've been ready for the role.
Here's an example, courtesy of our sales team.
We spoke with one company in the manufacturing sector that needed a simple mechanical aptitude test to assess incoming entry-level welding candidates. While hires weren't expected to have extensive welding knowledge, some basic mechanical knowledge was inferred. However, many of their newly hired workers lacked basic knowledge about tools and equipment, like how to read a tape measure.
As a result, when unqualified workers underwent the onboarding process, which involves a costly two-week training regimen to introduce hires to the basics of welding, many ended up dropping out, costing the company resources.
By implementing a basic mechanical aptitude test into their hiring process, the recruiting team could weed out unqualified candidates who didn't possess the aptitude to become entry-level welders.
Turnover
Many of the same roles that undergo the longest on-the-job training also happen to have the highest rates of turnover (like aforementioned manufacturing and 911 dispatcher roles).
Truck driving roles are also notoriously susceptible to high turnover — and in fact, the trade, transportation, and utilities industry overall has a high attrition rate.
If turnover’s a problem, even more emphasis has to be leveled at finding the hires who will stick with a job, enjoy the work’s level of complexity, and be comfortable in the environment.
Removing college degree requirements
A quarter of employers surveyed in a report from Resume Templates said they will remove bachelor’s degree requirements for some roles by the end of 2025.
In a survey of 1000 hiring managers, the majority of companies that had removed degree requirements reported it was a successful transition.
Yet in the same study, it was revealed that educational requirements rose in 19 occupational categories, especially in fields like architecture, accounting, and for physicians and surgeons.
Formal educational requirements are unlikely to disappear from areas related to healthcare or engineering, according to the report.
But even though skills-based hiring is gaining traction, according to one study, almost half of companies that made skills-based hiring announcements didn’t actually make real changes to their hiring practices, or up the number of degree-less workers.
Another report from Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy also points out a potential problem. If skills-based hiring allows some “middle skills” workers (those without a four-year degree, but more education than a high school diploma) to take jobs that would normally require a bachelor’s degree, it could help address shortages in jobs that require that college-level education, but at the same time, it could cause shortages of workers in jobs that require middle skills.
The positions they leave behind could end up even harder to staff. If new workers don’t receive the right training to backfill these positions, skills shortages could get even deeper.
That’s where aptitude testing and on-the-job training could also be a boon.
What are aptitude tests?
Aptitude tests are assessments used by employers to evaluate candidates’ cognitive abilities, problem-solving skills, and potential for job performance.
Unlike interviews or resumes that focus on experience, aptitude tests measure innate capabilities – such as how candidates think, reason, and learn – which are critical for success in many roles.
By providing objective data on candidates’ abilities, well-designed aptitude tests can help organizations identify high-potential hires, reduce bias, and avoid costly mis-hires.
Unlike skills tests, which assess a candidate’s learned abilities, aptitude represents a candidate’s natural potential or capacity to learn.
Types of aptitude tests in hiring
Aptitude tests come in many forms, each targeting specific cognitive skills or problem-solving abilities.
Common categories of aptitude tests used in pre-employment screening include the following:
Numerical reasoning tests
Evaluate a candidate’s ability to work with numbers, interpret data from tables or charts, and perform basic mathematical calculations under time constraints. These are widely used for roles in finance, accounting, data analysis, engineering, and other positions that require quantitative reasoning.
Candidates must interpret numerical information (like percentages or trends in graphs) and answer questions or word problems accurately. Strong performance on numerical tests indicates solid quantitative aptitude and comfort with numbers.
Verbal reasoning tests
Measure comprehension of written information, verbal logic, and critical reading skills.
Candidates might be given passages to read and then answer questions about the logic or inferences. Verbal reasoning is important for roles that involve communication, reading and writing, such as law, marketing, journalism, and customer service. High scores reflect the ability to understand complex texts and draw accurate conclusions from written material.
Logical thinking tests
Assess general logic, pattern recognition, and the ability to infer rules from abstract information. These often use diagrammatic or abstract patterns, where the candidate must identify the next item in the sequence or the underlying rule.
Logical reasoning tests evaluate pure problem-solving ability independent of language or math, and are commonly used for technical and IT roles or any position requiring systematic thinking. A related format is inductive or deductive reasoning tests (for example, syllogisms) that measure reasoning with given premises. Strong performance indicates high analytical and conceptual thinking skills.
Spatial reasoning tests
Measure the ability to visualize and manipulate shapes, forms, or objects in two- or three-dimensional space. Candidates might be asked to rotate objects mentally, identify mirror images, or imagine how flat patterns fold into 3D shapes.
Spatial reasoning is especially relevant for design, architecture, engineering, and other fields where working with spatial layouts or mechanical parts is essential. For example, an architect or pilot would be expected to excel in spatial visualization tasks.
Mechanical reasoning tests
Evaluate understanding of physical and mechanical principles, such as force, torque, gravity, pulleys, levers, gears, and basic electronics.
These tests present simple mechanical scenarios or diagrams and ask candidates to predict outcomes (like which gear turns faster, how a change will affect a mechanism).
Mechanical reasoning tests are used for technical trades and engineering roles (like electricians, mechanics, machine operators, HVAC technicians) to ensure candidates grasp practical physics and mechanics. High scores imply the candidate can quickly learn to operate or troubleshoot machinery and understand cause-effect in physical systems.
Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs)
Although slightly different from pure cognitive tests, SJTs are commonly used alongside aptitude tests. They present realistic work scenarios or dilemmas and ask candidates to choose the best (or worst) course of action from multiple options. SJTs assess practical decision-making, ethical judgment, and problem-solving in a work context. They are often tailored to specific job levels (for example, graduate trainee programs or managerial roles). SJTs help evaluate a candidate’s soft skills and judgment, complementing the cognitive aptitude measures with insight into behavioral tendencies.
Other aptitude assessments
Many test batteries include additional components targeting specific skills. For example, reading comprehension tests focus on understanding written passages in detail (often used in tandem with verbal reasoning). Math aptitude tests might cover basic arithmetic or higher-level math, depending on the role.
Error-checking or attention-to-detail tests present data or text for candidates to spot errors or inconsistencies, useful for clerical or administrative roles requiring high accuracy.
Finally, some employers use general cognitive ability tests that combine several of the above domains into one overall score. These general aptitude tests aim to measure a broad mental ability across multiple areas.
In practice, the specific mix of aptitude tests is tailored to the role: a sales position might involve numerical and verbal tests, whereas an engineering role might involve numerical, spatial, and mechanical components.
Aptitude tests should measure skills related to the target job – for example, testing math and reading ability for a bank teller is appropriate, but testing typing speed for a forklift operator would not be job-related.
The predictive validity of aptitude tests
Aptitude testing (also known as cognitive testing) used to be considered the highest predictor of job success, but more recent meta-analyses have discovered there are other higher predictors.
Still, something like a cognitive test can still boast high predictive potential of how someone will perform on-the-job. Sackett, in his 2022 meta-analysis, gives cognitive ability tests a predictive validity of 0.31, which shows a modest correlation.
This type of testing also tends to improve the quality of hire and reduce early turnover – candidates with higher cognitive ability can learn job tasks faster and adapt to new challenges, making them more productive and promotable in the long run.
Importantly, aptitude tests add objectivity to the selection process. Unlike unstructured interviews (which are subjective and vary by interviewer), a well-designed test provides a consistent metric for all candidates. This objectivity contributes to fairer, more merit-based hiring decisions. In fact, companies that implement aptitude and skills tests have seen reductions in hiring bias and improvements in workforce diversity.
Aptitude tests are extremely effective predictors of workplace performance on their own, and even more powerful when used alongside other valid measures. Given the high cost of bad hires, the use of these tests can save organizations significant money by improving the accuracy of hiring decisions.
That said, predictive power can vary by the specific test and context.
A general mental ability test tends to have broad usefulness, while a very narrow test (like a purely spatial test) will predict performance mainly in jobs where that specific ability is crucial.
The best evidence-based approach is to use aptitude tests that match key job requirements, and to validate, over time, that the test scores do relate to performance in that company’s role.
When implemented properly, cognitive aptitude testing provides a substantial competitive advantage in hiring, enabling data-driven selection of candidates who are likely to excel and grow in their roles.
Best Practices
There are steps you should take to ensure that the aptitude tests you implement are fair to candidates. Below are some of the ways to ensure test validity and avoid candidate drop-off during the testing process:
Ensure relevance to the job
This might go without saying, but you should only test for abilities that are genuinely required by the job. Including extraneous or overly difficult content can hurt certain groups unnecessarily. The EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines emphasize job-relatedness as the key criterion for any selection device.
For example, if hiring bank tellers, a numerical reasoning test is job-related, but a complex physics problem-solving test would not be. By focusing on relevant aptitudes, you both improve the test’s utility and avoid disparate impact from irrelevant hurdles.
Monitor adverse impact
Employers should keep an eye on test results for signs of adverse impact after each hiring cycle. A common rule of thumb is the “four-fifths rule” – if one group’s pass rate is less than 80% of the highest group’s pass rate, this may indicate adverse impact (though the 4/5 rule is not a legal definition, it’s a guideline).
If adverse impact is found, the employer should re-examine the test’s necessity and consider whether an alternative assessment with less impact could be used. Notably, many selection tools other than tests also cause adverse impact – for example, requiring a college degree or a certain height can screen out protected groups at higher rates.
However, unlike some arbitrary criteria, aptitude tests at least offer high predictive value to justify their use. The law does not forbid tests that have disparate impact if they are valid and essential to the job; it only forbids those that are not job-related.
Avoid discriminatory content
Ethically and legally, test content should be free of cultural biases or language that would favor one group over another unrelated to the job. For example, references in questions that assume certain cultural knowledge could disadvantage some candidates.
Test developers strive to eliminate biased items through careful review and fairness testing. Employers should choose tests that have been reviewed for bias and updated as needed.
Accessibility and accommodations
Ethically, all candidates should have a fair chance to show their aptitude. That means providing reasonable accommodations for candidates with disabilities. Under laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers must accommodate known disabilities in testing – like giving a dyslexic candidate extra time or providing a screen-reader-compatible format for a visually impaired candidate.
Tests should measure the construct of interest and not inadvertently become tests of a disability. Some testing platforms allow adjustments (like extended time) for those who request accommodation with proper documentation. Additionally, ensure online test platforms are compatible with assistive technologies and meet accessibility standards (like WCAG guidelines).
The goal is to measure a candidate’s true ability, not their test-taking conditions.
Combine test results with other selection methods
Never rely on aptitude test scores as the sole hiring criterion. Cognitive tests are powerful predictors, but they must be contextualized with other information about the candidate.
Best practice is to adopt a “whole-person” assessment strategy, where test results are one data point among others like interviews, job simulations, reference checks, and experience.
Structured interviews in particular complement aptitude tests well, as they can probe areas the tests cannot (such as interpersonal skills or motivational fit) and have high validity themselves.
When aptitude tests are used as an initial hurdle, subsequent steps should verify and expand on what the test indicated. For example, if a candidate scored lower on verbal reasoning but you still interview them, you might include some additional questions or exercises in the interview to directly assess their communication skills – perhaps they have compensating strengths or the test under-represented their ability.
Conversely, a very high test scorer should still face behavioral interview questions and other assessments to ensure they have the practical skills and attitude for the job. Using a mix of assessment methods leads to better decisions: each method has different strengths and biases, so combining them gives a more balanced view.
How to administer and interpret aptitude test results
Once candidates complete an aptitude test, how you interpret and use those scores is critical. Here are some guidelines:
Choose the right stage in the hiring process
Decide at what point candidates should take aptitude tests. Many organizations use them early in the process, as a screening tool after an initial resume review or short application. Administering a cognitive test in the pre-screening stage can quickly filter a large applicant pool to a manageable number for interviews.
This works especially well for entry-level or high-volume roles – for example, requiring all applicants to complete a 20-minute aptitude test online, and advancing only the top scorers. The benefit is efficiency and ensuring you invest time interviewing candidates who are likely to succeed.
If using tests early, be mindful of candidate experience – a subset of candidates may drop out if faced with a lengthy test before any human interaction.
Consider job requirements in weighting scores
If a job heavily requires one aptitude (say numerical reasoning for an analyst role), you might weigh that test score more in your decision. Some employers set minimum cut-offs for the most crucial aptitudes.
For example, you may decide that all accountants need at least a moderate score on numerical reasoning, but you’re flexible on verbal reasoning. Define what a “good score” is in context of the job by correlating with what current good performers score if possible.
Watch for inconsistencies or red flags
Use the test results to identify areas to probe further. If a candidate has an outlier score – for example, very low in one sub-area and very high in another – it could indicate a specific weakness to verify or could be a fluke.
An unusually low score might even indicate the candidate didn’t take the test seriously or had technical difficulties; if everything else about the candidate is stellar, you might consider re-testing or inquiring about the result (without violating test security).
Use aptitude testing as one data point, not the final verdict
Keep in mind that a test score, high or low, is not an infallible measure of a person’s worth or ability. People have off days, some extremely capable people just test poorly, and conversely some may test well but lack other qualities.
A low score doesn’t automatically disqualify a candidate. Use test results as one piece of the puzzle, alongside other factors like experience, interviews, and work sample performance.
If a candidate’s score is below your expectation but their resume and interview are excellent, you might still keep them in consideration, especially if the aptitude in question can be developed on the job.
However, be mindful of the role’s needs – if the job demands quick learning and the candidate’s cognitive test indicates serious difficulty in that area, proceed with caution (perhaps gather an additional sample of their work or problem-solving).
Be transparent
Clearly explain to candidates why you are asking them to take the test and why it’s relevant. For example, in an email or test instructions: “We use this assessment to evaluate key skills like problem-solving and learning ability, which are important for success in this role.”
When candidates understand the purpose, they are more engaged and view it as a fair step rather than a hurdle. Also, explain how long the test will take and any instructions upfront.
Ensure a smooth technical experience
If the test is online, make sure candidates have clear instructions on technical requirements (like stable internet and supported browsers) and access to support if something goes wrong.
Test your platform as if you were a candidate to iron out any glitches. Also consider giving a reasonable window for completion (like a few days) so candidates can choose a convenient, quiet time – this flexibility can reduce anxiety.
Respect candidates’ time
Keep tests as short as feasible to assess the needed competencies. Overly long or repetitive assessments can frustrate candidates and increase dropout rates.
If you need to combine multiple tests, consider doing them in one session rather than making the candidate come back repeatedly, but also allow breaks if the total is long. Communicate the expected duration beforehand.
Give feedback (within reason)
While you may not be able to share full scores or proprietary details, even a general note is appreciated. For example, upon request you might tell a candidate, “You excelled in numerical reasoning, but your score in the verbal section was a bit below our role’s benchmark.”
If not individually, some companies send automated feedback reports to candidates, highlighting strengths or development tips. This practice leaves candidates with a positive impression of your process and can serve as a learning opportunity for them. Just ensure any feedback is phrased constructively.
If privacy or legal concerns limit what you share, you can at least thank candidates and let them know the process outcome courteously.
Strive for continuous testing improvement
Treat your aptitude testing program as a living process. Collect data on how well the tests predict performance in reality – for example, do those who scored high in the test during hiring actually perform better in their first year?
Work with your HR analytics team or test provider to compute validity periodically. Solicit feedback from hiring managers about the quality of candidates coming through.
Also, monitor candidate feedback; if many complain about the test experience, consider adjustments. Over time, you might refine your cutoff scores, switch to a different test that works better, or change when the test is used.
Why aptitude-based hiring?
Aptitude-based hiring, like its very close cousin, skills-based hiring, focuses on finding individuals who can do the work — but need help learning how.
When aligned to job needs and combined with human judgment, aptitude tests can greatly enhance the efficiency and fairness of hiring. They help identify hidden gems who might be overlooked by resume screening, and provide measurable insights to guide decision-making.
However, they are not a magic bullet.
They work best in concert with other assessments and when implemented in a candidate-friendly manner.
By following best practices – testing at the right stage, using the right test, interpreting results wisely, and treating candidates respectfully – organizations can use aptitude tests to hire smarter and build stronger teams.
Want to explore adding aptitude and skills testing to your hiring process? (Hint hint: You can speak with the eSkill team and we can help you implement the right kinds of tests for your hiring wants and needs.)
Get ademo.