No.

Invalid or uninterpretable test results should never be used as the sole basis for a Not Suitable determination.

Consider potential explanations such as:

• Language barriers

• Cultural differences

• Reading comprehension difficulties

• Poor test-taking skills

• Fatigue

• Anxiety

• Inattention

• Random responding

• Intentional distortion

The applicant's interview performance, behavioral observations, occupational history, and collateral information should all be considered when interpreting invalid testing.

Language and cultural factors may significantly influence test performance and should be considered throughout the evaluation.

Examples include:

• Limited English proficiency

• Strong accents

• Different educational backgrounds

• Cultural differences affecting interpretation of questions

Poor test performance related to language barriers should not automatically be interpreted as cognitive impairment or psychological pathology.

If communication barriers significantly limit the evaluation, document those limitations clearly. If the evaluator cannot obtain sufficient information to render an opinion, consultation with a Lead Psychologist or returning the evaluation to the agency may be appropriate.

Report Guidance:

Since FMRT no longer uses Weak but Suitable (WBS) recommendations, applicants should be found either:

• Suitable, with communication limitations clearly documented in the Weaknesses section of the report, or

• Not Suitable, if the communication barriers prevent safe and effective performance of the essential job functions.

Wonderlic scores should never be interpreted in isolation.

Consider:

• Interview performance

• Mental status examination

• Occupational history

• Educational background

• Practical reasoning abilities

• Ability to apply information

• Observed cognitive functioning

Applicants occasionally perform significantly better or worse on the Wonderlic than expected.

Testing results should always be interpreted alongside the total clinical picture.

Occasionally, Wonderlic scores do not align with the applicant's observed presentation.

Examples include:

• Very low Wonderlic with strong reasoning skills during interview

• Very high Wonderlic with poor practical reasoning

• Strong work history despite poor cognitive testing

• Educational achievement inconsistent with testing

When discrepancies exist:

• Report the test score accurately.

• Describe the observed functioning.

• Explain the discrepancy when appropriate.

• Avoid speculation regarding cheating or test irregularities unless supported by objective evidence.

Clinical observations should be integrated with testing rather than replaced by it.

Community norms may be appropriate for positions that are not public safety or safety-sensitive, particularly when occupational comparison groups are not representative of the position being evaluated.

When interpreting elevated scores:

• Elevations within the occupational comparison group indicate the applicant differs from individuals successfully performing similar work.

• Elevations within community norms generally represent broader clinical significance.

Community norm elevations typically warrant greater clinical attention.

• Testing should never be interpreted in isolation.

• Invalid testing does not automatically support a Not Suitable recommendation.

• Consider language, culture, education, and testing limitations when interpreting results.

• Clinical observations should always be integrated with objective testing.

• Wonderlic scores should be interpreted within the context of the applicant's demonstrated functioning.

• Community norms may be more appropriate for non-public safety positions.

• FMRT recommendations are Suitable or Not Suitable; when applicants demonstrate limitations that do not warrant a Not Suitable recommendation, those concerns should be clearly documented in the Weaknesses or Disqualifiers section of the report.