A cognitive ability test can help you hire salespeople, but it shouldn't decide the hire on its own. Newer research puts cognitive tests behind structured interviews as a predictor of job performance (Sackett et al., 2022), and for salespeople specifically, test scores have tracked a manager's opinion far better than actual sales (Vinchur et al., 1998). Use one as part of a wider process, make sure it fits the job, and in Ontario, give every candidate the same test and accommodate where needed.
Plenty of owners have been told a quick aptitude test is the smartest thing they can add to a hiring process. For a long time, that was the textbook answer. It isn't anymore.
Isn't cognitive ability the best predictor of job performance?
That was the standard line for about 25 years. It came largely from a 1998 review by Schmidt and Hunter, which put the validity of cognitive ability tests at .51, higher than almost anything else.
In 2022, Sackett et al. re-ran the numbers in the Journal of Applied Psychology. They argued the older estimates had been over-corrected for a statistical problem called range restriction. With that fixed, cognitive ability tests came in at .31. Structured interviews ranked first at .42, followed by job knowledge tests (.40), biodata (.38) and work samples (.33). In a 2023 follow-up, the same authors (Sackett et al., 2023) noted that the old .51 rested on studies that were at least 50 years old.
So cognitive ability still predicts performance. It's just not the clear winner it used to be. The same researchers still say cognitive tests "merit consideration" as quick, off-the-shelf tools, and that they remain the strongest predictor where training is long and expensive (Sackett et al., 2023).
To be fair, not everyone accepts the re-analysis. Cucina and Hayes (2023) published a commentary pushing back, titled "Rumors of general mental ability's demise are the next red herring." The debate is live. What's settled is that a test score shouldn't outweigh everything else.
What does the research say about salespeople specifically?
This is where it gets interesting.
A 1998 meta-analysis of predictors for salespeople by Vinchur et al. found cognitive ability correlated .40 with supervisor ratings but only .04 with objective sales results. In other words, bright salespeople impressed their managers, but on actual numbers the test told you almost nothing. In the same study, achievement, a part of conscientiousness, correlated .41 with objective sales.
A later sales meta-analysis by Verbeke et al. (2010) put cognitive aptitude at .23. That was behind selling-related knowledge (.28) and adaptiveness (.27), though it was based on only 12 correlations.
And a 2008 study by Verbeke et al., published in the Journal of Marketing, found something every sales manager will recognize. Across two samples, salespeople with high cognitive ability and strong social skills had the highest sales. Salespeople with high cognitive ability and weak social skills had the lowest. Brains without the ability to read a buyer can make things worse, not better.
That fits what we see in good salespeople generally. The ones buyers trust listen before they advise, change their recommendation when the buyer corrects them, and admit what they don't know. A cognitive test measures none of that.
Are cognitive tests fair to every candidate?
This matters, and it's an honest trade-off.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (n.d.) notes that cognitive ability tests typically produce larger racial and ethnic score differences than other valid predictors. Sackett et al. (2023) also found cognitive ability shows the largest average score gap between White and Black test-takers of the common predictors. Simulations and work samples tend to show smaller gaps (De Soete et al., 2013).
Research also suggests the tests predict performance about equally well across groups. A 2014 study by Roth et al. found that apparent differences in how well the tests predict for different groups "may be largely artifactual." So the concern isn't that the test is less accurate for some people. It's that, used as a hard cut-off, it can screen out more people from some groups, which raises both fairness and legal questions.
The practical answer is not to rely on a cognitive test alone, and never to use a single cut score as the gate.
What do Ontario employers need to know?
You're not banned from using cognitive tests in Ontario, but the Ontario Human Rights Commission sets clear expectations for any written test (Ontario Human Rights Commission [OHRC], 2008a).
- Tie it to the job. The OHRC (2008a) says any written test should be based on the job's essential duties and bona fide requirements.
- Same test, same scoring. Tests should be identical for all applicants and scored against pre-set criteria (OHRC, 2008a).
- Accommodate. The duty to accommodate covers employment testing, short of undue hardship (OHRC, 2008a). A candidate may need more time, or a different format such as screen-reading software.
- Justify a standard that screens people out. Under the Supreme Court of Canada's Meiorin decision (British Columbia v. BCGSEU, 1999), a standard that has an adverse effect on a protected group must be rationally connected to the job, adopted in good faith and reasonably necessary, with accommodation short of undue hardship.
One more thing to watch. The OHRC's guidance says tests of psychological or personality profiles "should never be administered before a conditional offer of employment" (OHRC, 2008b). That passage doesn't mention cognitive tests. But many assessment packages bundle cognitive and personality measures together, so know what's in the package you're buying, and confirm your timing with employment counsel.
How should I use a cognitive test in sales hiring?
Five steps.
- Start with the job. Under the professional standards for testing set by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, job analysis is the starting evidence that a test is relevant (Tippins, 2023). Write down what the role actually demands. A technical sales role selling complex equipment may lean on learning speed far more than a relationship-based territory role.
- Use it as one input, not the gate. Combine the score with a structured interview, references and, ideally, a work sample like a mock discovery call. Don't let one number knock out a candidate on its own.
- Give everyone the same test, the same way. Same instructions, same time limits, same scoring, with accommodation available and offered.
- Read it alongside social skill. Given the findings of Verbeke et al. (2008), a high score is only good news if the candidate can also read and respond to people. Look for evidence of that elsewhere in your process.
- Be wary of vendor claims. Ask any test provider for evidence that their test predicts performance in roles like yours. As one practitioner told SHRM, "Vendors bash their competitors and say their test is the greatest" (Maurer, 2018).
We've covered how to read a sales assessment report and structured interviews for sales roles if you want the rest of the picture.
Work with us. Ashley Wesley, MA, CHRL, CIM, and our team are based in Guelph, Ontario. Our Final Candidate Review puts testing in its place: one piece of evidence, read against your role and your own best people, alongside everything else we learn about your finalist before you commit. Our handshake guarantee: if the report and process don't help, you don't pay.
In short
Cognitive ability tests predict job performance, but a 2022 re-analysis by Sackett et al. puts them at .31, behind structured interviews (.42). For salespeople, one meta-analysis (Vinchur et al., 1998) found cognitive ability correlated .40 with supervisor ratings but only .04 with actual sales. High cognitive ability paired with weak social skills was linked to the lowest sales (Verbeke et al., 2008). Cognitive tests also show larger group score gaps than other predictors (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, n.d.). In Ontario, tie any test to the job's essential duties, give everyone the same test, score it against pre-set criteria and accommodate where needed (OHRC, 2008a).
Key takeaways
- A 2022 re-analysis put cognitive ability test validity at .31, behind structured interviews at .42 (Sackett et al., 2022).
- For salespeople, cognitive ability correlated .40 with supervisor ratings but .04 with objective sales (Vinchur et al., 1998).
- Salespeople with high cognitive ability and low social competence had the lowest sales in two samples (Verbeke et al., 2008).
- Cognitive tests show larger racial and ethnic score differences than other valid predictors (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, n.d.).
- The Ontario Human Rights Commission (2008a) says written tests should be based on the job's essential duties and scored against pre-set criteria.
Frequently asked questions
Are cognitive ability tests good for hiring salespeople?
They can add useful information, but they're a weaker predictor of sales results than many owners assume. One meta-analysis (Vinchur et al., 1998) found cognitive ability barely predicted actual sales, even though it predicted manager ratings well. Use a test alongside a structured interview, references and a work sample.
Is cognitive ability still the best predictor of job performance?
Not according to a major 2022 re-analysis by Sackett et al., which ranked structured interviews, job knowledge tests, biodata and work samples ahead of cognitive ability tests. Some researchers dispute that re-analysis (Cucina & Hayes, 2023), but either way a test score shouldn't decide a hire on its own.
Can I use an aptitude test when hiring in Ontario?
Yes, if it's based on the job's essential duties, given the same way to every candidate, scored against pre-set criteria, and you accommodate candidates who need it (OHRC, 2008a). Confirm your approach with employment counsel, especially if the test package includes personality measures.
What is adverse impact in hiring tests?
Adverse impact is when a test screens out a larger share of people from one group than another. Cognitive tests show larger average group differences than most other predictors (Sackett et al., 2023; U.S. Office of Personnel Management, n.d.), which is one reason not to use a single cut score as the gate.
References
British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3.
Cucina, J. M., & Hayes, T. L. (2023). Rumors of general mental ability's demise are the next red herring. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 301-306. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.37
De Soete, B., Lievens, F., & Druart, C. (2013). Strategies for dealing with the diversity-validity dilemma in personnel selection: Where are we and where should we go? Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.5093/tr2013a2
Maurer, R. (2018, April 24). How to choose hiring assessments that work for you. Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/in/topics-tools/news/talent-acquisition/how-to-choose-hiring-assessments-work
Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2008a). Interviewing and making hiring decisions. In Human rights at work 2008 (3rd ed.). https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/iv-human-rights-issues-all-stages-employment/5-interviewing-and-making-hiring-decisions
Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2008b). Requesting job-related sensitive information. In Human rights at work 2008 (3rd ed.). https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/iv-human-rights-issues-all-stages-employment/6-requesting-job-related-sensitive-information
Roth, P. L., Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Buster, M. A., Robbins, S. B., & Campion, M. A. (2014). Differential validity for cognitive ability tests in employment and educational settings: Not much more than range restriction? Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034377
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040-2068. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2023). Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 283-300. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.24
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
Tippins, N. T. (2023, January 31). Testimony of Nancy T. Tippins, Ph.D. [Testimony on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology]. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/meetings/meeting-january-31-2023-navigating-employment-discrimination-ai-and-automated-systems-new/tippins,%20ph.d.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (n.d.). Assessment decision guide. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/assessment-and-selection/reference-materials/assessmentdecisionguide.pdf
Verbeke, W., Dietz, B., & Verwaal, E. (2010). Drivers of sales performance: A contemporary meta-analysis (ERIM Report Series ERS-2010-031-ORG). Erasmus Research Institute of Management. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/20379/ERS-2010-031-ORG.pdf
Verbeke, W. J., Belschak, F. D., Bakker, A. B., & Dietz, B. (2008). When intelligence is (dys)functional for achieving sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 44-57. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.4.44
Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., III, & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 586-597. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.586
Disclaimer: This article provides general HR and business information, not legal advice. Employment law turns on the specific facts and changes over time. Before acting on anything here, confirm it with an Ontario employment lawyer.
