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.