Question: Is an applicant not suitable if they have a very low Wonderlic score and invalid PAI results due to misunderstanding questions, given they are bilingual but born in the US?

Answer: No, these issues alone do not make her unsuitable. It sounds like the difficulties may stem from language and/or cultural barriers, which can affect testing performance. Just note these concerns in the report so the employer is aware that she might struggle with misunderstandings and classroom training.

Question: Should I use the community sample t-scores for interpreting test scores for an applicant applying for an animal shelter attendant position, given that the usual comparisons show severe distress and issues?

Answer: Yes, in this case, it’s appropriate to use community sample t-scores rather than the usual comparison samples. Since the role of an animal shelter attendant is quite different from safety-sensitive positions like detention officers or dispatchers, the community sample t-scores will provide a more relevant assessment. Stick to your clinical judgment and report based on these norms, noting that the usual comparisons do not apply here.

Question:
A candidate who scored 0 on the Wonderlic test but performed well on cognitive tests, showing good abstract reasoning and responses on vignettes. The candidate has been working as a PSO for nearly 10 years and mentioned difficulty with the Wonderlic due to time constraints. Is this mismatch in test scores is common.

Answer:
While it’s not common, there have been similar situations 15-20 times. Possible reasons for the low score include distraction during the Wonderlic, overthinking, slow processing speed, lack of seriousness, fatigue from taking multiple tests, discouragement from difficult questions, poor test-taking skills, anxiety, or perceiving the test as irrelevant to the job.

Given the candidate's better performance in the interview and solid work history, there are no grounds for rating him as Not Suitable. Suggest noting the low score without specifying it and offering explanations for the performance, followed by an assertion that the score does not reflect the candidate's true abilities based on practical examples from the interview.

Key Question:

When a candidate presents with a strong accent and limited English fluency that impacts communication during the interview and testing (e.g., Wonderlic), is it appropriate to rate them With Barriers to Suitability (WBS) rather than Not Suitable (NS)?

1. Observed Communication Challenges:

   • The candidate, originally from Vietnam, spoke English as a second language with a strong accent and limited grammar.

   • The psychologist reported frequent difficulty understanding his responses during the interview, though the candidate appeared to understand questions and instructions adequately.

   • This created concerns about how effectively the candidate might communicate with inmates or staff in a detention setting, especially under stress or in emergent situations.

2. Testing Considerations:

   • The candidate scored a 2 on the Wonderlic, which is markedly low.

   • This score is likely influenced by language barriers rather than true cognitive limitation, particularly since the candidate has earned an associate degree in criminal justice and demonstrated functional comprehension in the interview.

Answer:

Yes, when language limitations impact evaluation clarity but do not reflect disqualifying behavior or pathology, a WBS (With Barriers to Suitability) rating is appropriate. The reasoning is as follows:

1. Cultural and Historical Context:

   • FMRT has previously encountered similar situations with departments that actively recruited candidates from non-English-speaking regions, including Puerto Rico and Asia.

   • When a department refers a candidate with known language barriers, it often indicates implicit approval or a willingness to assess fit based on agency-specific communication needs.

2. Clinical and Ethical Consideration:

   • A strong accent or cultural differences alone are not grounds for a Not Suitable rating.

   • However, if the language barrier prevents mutual understanding or compromises safety, the evaluation may need to be suspended and returned to the employer.

3. Recommendation:

   • In this case, the best course is to rate the candidate WBS, document the observed communication barriers clearly, and explain how these could impact performance in a detention setting.

   • The agency should be encouraged to assess real-world fit based on their own interaction and operational context.

Summary:

A strong accent and limited English grammar can create practical communication concerns, especially in correctional settings. These concerns may not rise to the level of disqualification, but they do warrant a WBS rating and clear documentation in the report. Testing limitations due to language barriers should be acknowledged, and the hiring agency should be advised to evaluate the candidate further in their own setting.

Key Question:
How should psychologists interpret and report cognitive ability when an applicant’s Wonderlic score is high but appears inconsistent with their educational background, mental status performance, or overall interview presentation?

Answer:
When an applicant presents with a high Wonderlic score (e.g., in the above-average range) that does not align with other indicators such as limited educational attainment, poor mental status exam performance, or weak occupational history, psychologists should still report the test score accurately but provide explanatory context in the narrative. This may involve offering a broader range for intellectual functioning (e.g., “high-average to above-average”) and stating that while the formal test results place them in a higher range, their observed behavior and documented history suggest a somewhat lower level of functioning.

Psychologists are advised not to speculate in writing about cheating, test conditions, or unsupervised completion unless there is a direct admission or clear evidence. If discrepancies remain, it is acceptable to attribute the result to the applicant being a particularly strong test-taker, just as we sometimes note that weak scores may result from poor test-taking ability. Ultimately, the applicant’s ability to apply sound judgment, understand legal application, and function under stress should weigh more heavily in suitability determinations than raw test scores alone.

Summary:
If the Wonderlic score is inconsistent with the applicant’s background and presentation, report the score but explain the discrepancy. Emphasize observed functioning over test performance in forming suitability conclusions.