There are essentially three types of psychometric tests of fluid ability.
  • Conceptual or Abstract Reasoning Tests
  • Learning Potential Tests
  • Cognitive Processing Tests
1. Abstract / Conceptual Reasoning Tests
Abstract or Conceptual Reasoning tests typically form part of a broader test battery such as a General Reasoning Test, or part of a Learning Potential Test Battery or part of a set of Aptitude Tests.

Abstract or Conceptual Reasoning psychometric tests consist of non – verbal (no language involved) test items that require a candidate to engage in thinking processes such as: identify relationships, analyse, think logically, engage in what – if or hypothetical thinking, test hypotheses, draw conclusions, see underlying patterns in order to solve the problems presented in the test items.

Usually tests consist of between 25 and 35 test items that need to be completed within a specific time limit. The candidate’s number of correct answers will be compared to a norm group on a norm table, from which a standard score or a stanine will be derived. Remember this was discussed in module 3. A stanine score of 1 – 3 would be regarded as being below average compared to the norm group, a score of 4 low average, 5 average, 6 high average and 7 – 9 as above average compared to the norm group.

Abstract Reasoning is a particularly good overall indicator of fluid ability. Because people with strong fluid ability can solve complex and challenging problems that they have not experienced before or have been trained to deal with, they are more versatile and cognitively adaptable. Usually they can problem solve across a wide range of situations, relatively independently of their Competencies. Individuals with limited Abstract Reasoning are limited to solving problems that fall within their fund of experience and well-practised solutions. Let us take a closer look at abstract or conceptual reasoning. Fundamentally, Abstract Reasoning is when someone uses ideas or concepts to think. Concrete reasoning is the opposite of abstract reasoning. It involves working with literal information – things that actually exist in the physical world that you can see and touch as opposed to an idea. People with extremely low abstract ability have difficulty in thinking beyond what they can physically touch or see. For example, justice is an abstract concept, while a police officer is a concrete idea.

Here are more examples:
Abstract Conceptual Thinking
Competitive advantage
Customer Experience
Production Plan
Talent Pipeline
Shift Handover
Scrap and Waste
Concrete Thinking
Actual physical competitor
Actual physical customer
Actual physical product
Actual physical employees
Actual shift handover documents
Number of reworked items
Main Concept
Revenue goals


Operations Plan
Production Plan
Aftermarket
Sub Concepts
Market penetration, diversification, market entry, overhead cost, unit cost
Cost reduction, productivity improvement, quality improvement
Actual physical product
Parts, components, security upgrades
Conceptual Reasoning is Characterized By:
  • Forming new ideas
  • Identifying trends and patterns
  • Thinking in concepts
  • Analysing situations
  • Forming theories
  • Engaging in what – if thinking
  • Forming and testing hypotheses
  • Creating and using mental models
  • Looking beyond the obvious to identify underlying issues
  • Putting things in perspective.
  • Manipulating information
So how does it all work in practise?
Let us take scrap and waste as an example. A production manager asks two production team leaders to formulate a plan to reduce scrap and waste on their shifts.
Team Leader A has good abstract reasoning abilities. He is therefore able to identify the different components in the system that contribute to scrap and waste – the sub concepts – like operators, maintenance, training, skill level, motivation, machine efficiencies. Having identified the sub – concepts, he can do several things. Formulate what – if scenarios – what if I changed the mix of my team, what if I improved training, what if I checked the planned maintenance schedules. He can in his mind test out hypotheses. I think operators are inexperienced – let me check this out by doing a skills test on them. He can identify trends and patterns by for instance checking to see if scrap and waste is greater on certain shifts or machines. He can analyse production metrics on his shift and draw conclusions from them. He can formulate remedies in his mind.
Team Leader B has poor abstract reasoning abilities. As a concrete thinker he can only think of the problem in terms of the actual items that have to be scrapped or re – worked. He is unable to step back from the “physical touch” and feel of the problem and think about it in terms of concepts and sub – concepts and as a result is stuck at the “ground – level” or end effect of the problem which is defective parts. The only tools he has to deal with the problem are whatever experience he has for dealing with the same problem.
BACK  NEXT