Candidate Selection: A Definitive Guide
Learn of candidate selection to improve your candidate selection process and build a high-performing workforce.
PAGE CONTENTS
Cut-off scores represent the minimum level of performance an applicant must achieve to be considered for a job or to move on to the next stage of the selection process. Without cut-off scores, assessments themselves serve no purpose, as the utility of pre-employment testing is only realized when you screen out poor performers on that assessment.
Choosing the right cut-off score is essential to ensure that the most qualified candidates are identified, while also avoiding unintended biases and adverse impact on underrepresented groups. Additionally, the appropriate cut-off score can help organizations strike a balance between candidate quality and quantity, reducing the time and resources required to process large numbers of applications.
In this article, we will explore the various factors that organizations should consider when choosing cut-off scores for pre-employment testing. We will examine the potential efits and drawbacks of high and low cut-off scores, as well as the impact of applicant pool size and diversity on the selection process.
section one
High Cut-Off Scores Improve Candidate Quality
The most important consideration when choosing cut-off scores is their impact on candidate quality. Assuming that you have chosen assessments which are valid predictors of performance in the workplace, your chosen cut score will be directly proportional to the quality of subsequent candidates in your applicant pool. Cut-off scores are also indirectly related to the overall return on investment (ROI) generated by a selection process overall, as higher performers on valid assessments will perform to a higher standard in their role, offering a tangible ROI from being more selective with your cut-off scores.
When you set high cut-off scores, you ensure that only the highest-potential candidates are progressed through the selection process. For example, by setting a cut-off score at the 90th percentile for a given assessment, you are choosing only to hire the top 10% of applicants, reserving employment only for the cream of the crop. Moreover, since the 90th percentile represents the lowest possible score that successful applicants are allowed, the average score for applicants is likely to be significantly higher, likely around the 95th percentile. Assuming that your assessment(s) are high-valid predictors of performance, this means that the typical successful applicant is likely to be extremely highly performing, improving candidate quality.
Want to watch a video instead?
If you would prefer to watch a video, here is Ben talking about cut-off scores and how they impact candidate selection and the recruitment process:
Low cut-off scores, on the other hand, introduce more risk to the selection process. For example, setting an extremely low cut-off score, say at the 5th percentile, allows very low-performing applicants to proceed through the process. On valid and reliable psychometric assessments, candidates scoring around the 6th percentile are disproportionately likely to experience capability or behavioural fit issues, reducing the quality of hire. Statistically speaking, a very low cut-off score isn't much better than selecting candidates at random, or omitting assessments completely, as all three strategies are likely to yield an average candidate performance at around the 50th percentile mark.
Low cut-off scores, on the other hand, introduce more risk to the selection process. For example, setting an extremely low cut-off score, say at the 5th percentile, allows very low-performing applicants to proceed through the process. On valid and reliable psychometric assessments, candidates scoring around the 6th percentile are disproportionately likely to experience capability or behavioural fit issues, reducing the quality of hire. Statistically speaking, a very low cut-off score isn't much better than selecting candidates at random, or omitting assessments completely, as all three strategies are likely to yield an average candidate performance at around the 50th percentile mark.
section two
High Cut-Off Scores Require Many Candidates
While higher cut-off scores for pre-employment tests can significantly improve candidate quality, it is crucial to consider the impact of the applicant pool size when determining the appropriate threshold. A balance between the size of the applicant pool and the desired cut-off score is essential to ensure a successful recruitment process.
In the context of pre-employment testing, a high cut-off score requires a larger applicant pool to increase the likelihood of identifying a sufficient number of qualified candidates. With a greater number of applicants, companies have a higher chance of finding candidates who possess the desired skills, knowledge, and abilities, as well as meeting the established cut-off score.
However, when faced with a smaller applicant pool, setting a high cut-off score can present several challenges. A limited pool may result in an insufficient number of qualified candidates, potentially leaving positions unfilled or forcing companies to settle for candidates who do not meet their desired qualifications. In such situations, organizations may need to re-evaluate their recruitment strategies, considering alternative methods to attract more applicants or adjusting their cut-off scores to better align with the available talent.
One way to address the issue of a small applicant pool is to expand the reach of recruitment efforts. Companies can utilize various channels, such as job boards, social media platforms, and targeted advertising, to attract a more diverse and extensive pool of applicants. Additionally, organizations can partner with colleges, universities, and professional associations to tap into networks of highly skilled and motivated individuals.
Organizations that are inexperienced with pre-employment testing often assume that their applicant pools will be of unusually high quality by default, enabling them to choose high cut-off scores regardless of the applicant pool size.
Another approach is to consider adjusting the cut-off score based on the size of the applicant pool and the specific needs of the organization. For example, if an organization has limited resources and cannot expand its applicant pool, it may be more practical to lower the cut-off score while still maintaining a rigorous selection process. This allows companies to identify candidates with strong potential who may not have initially met the high cut-off score but can still contribute significantly to the organization's success.
Organizations that are inexperienced with pre-employment testing often assume that their applicant pools will be of unusually high quality by default, enabling them to choose high cut-off scores regardless of the applicant pool size. Statistically speaking, performance on virtually all pre-employment tests is normally distributed and follows the traditional bell curve. Consequently, the vast majority of applicants will be of average quality, with fewer at the extremes. Therefore, you should not assume that your organization is the exception to this rule and plan your applicant volumes accordingly.
section three
High Cut-Off Scores Exasperate Adverse Impact
While high cut-off scores can contribute to improved candidate quality, it is essential to consider their potential impact on adverse impact and diversity within the hiring process. Adverse impact occurs when a neutral policy or practice, such as a cut-off score, disproportionately affects members of a specific group, leading to unintended discrimination. This section will discuss how high cut-off scores can exacerbate adverse impact, potentially screening out diverse candidates and hindering diversity and inclusion initiatives, particularly when few diverse applicants apply in the first place.
High cut-off scores can unintentionally contribute to adverse impact by disproportionately screening out candidates from underrepresented groups. Research has shown that certain pre-employment tests can produce score differences between demographic groups, leading to disparate pass rates. When companies set high cut-off scores, these disparities can become more pronounced, resulting in a significant number of diverse candidates being eliminated from the selection process. This can undermine efforts to create a more inclusive and diverse workforce and may expose organizations to legal challenges related to equal employment opportunity regulations.
High cut-off scores can unintentionally contribute to adverse impact by disproportionately screening out candidates from underrepresented groups.
The issue of adverse impact is further compounded when few diverse applicants apply for a position. In cases where there is already limited representation from specific demographic groups, high cut-off scores can exacerbate the problem by further reducing the number of diverse candidates who advance in the recruitment process. This can create a cycle where underrepresented groups continue to face barriers to entry, making it even more challenging for organizations to meet their diversity and inclusion goals.
One approach is to conduct a thorough validation study to ensure that the test accurately predicts job performance and is job-related. This can provide evidence that the cut-off score is a justifiable measure of the required skills and abilities for a particular role, reducing the likelihood of adverse impact.
Another strategy is to implement alternative or supplementary assessment methods that focus on reducing adverse impact while still maintaining the validity and rigor of the selection process. For example, organizations can incorporate structured interviews, situational judgment tests, or work sample tests, which have been shown to produce fewer group differences while still effectively predicting job performance.
section four
Summary
Although high cut-off scores offer a wide range of tangible benefits on paper, in practice, there are other considerations that must be addressed. Naturally, the more selective you are, the greater your applicant pool needs to be. In practice, organizations often reserve highly selective cut-off scores for emerging talent recruitment, such as graduates, apprentices, interns, etc. Emerging talent recruitment programs often attract large numbers of applicants, allowing organizations to employ high cut-off scores without fear of screening out too many applicants. Additionally, organizations must be mindful of adverse impact when choosing cut-off scores. The higher the cut-off score, the greater the adverse impact, giving organizations further pause for thought when choosing their cut-off scores. Consequently, we strongly recommend asking for technical information regarding adverse impact before working with a new test provider, ensuring you have the flexibility to set competitive cut-off scores without exacerbating adverse impact.
