Cognitive Process Profile (CPP)The Cognitive Process Profile (CPP) is a computerised exercise that...
Transcript of Cognitive Process Profile (CPP)The Cognitive Process Profile (CPP) is a computerised exercise that...
Cognitive Process Profile (CPP)
Quick interpretation guide
to understanding the CPP report
V 1.1.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 2 of 22
SECTION 1
Introduction
The CPP
The Cognitive Process Profile (CPP) is a computerised exercise that has been designed to externalise and dynamically track a person’s cognitive processes to give an indication of thinking preferences, capabilities and potential for growth. The thinking processes are interpreted using algorithms. The aim of this guide is to assist accredited interpreters in providing feedback on the CPP report and to help the candidate understand their own report. The CPP report can be tailored to meet varied needs, so not all sections are generated in every report. If a section was left out of the report requested, then the numbering of the sections will still follow a sequential order. This guide is a supplement to the CPP report and should not be considered a standalone document. Interpretations should always be done by a CPP accredited practitioner who uses the full CPP manual as a guide.
Cognitive constructs reported on by the CPP
The theoretical model on which the CPP is based
Suitable SST work environment
Current and potential work environments
Work-related processing dimensions
Unit of information
Stylistic preferences and capabilities
Task requirements associated with processing tendencies
Speed and pace control
Processing competencies
Strengths and development areas
Learning potential
Developmental guidelines
Summary of results
Graphic summary
Biographical Information
This section gives the person’s personal information that they filled out before the game. This information can assist in interpretation. Not all of this information is recorded by the assessment, if no information is found “Not indicated” is generated on the report.
Self-evaluation
This information is filled out after the candidate has completed the test. This does not impact on a person’s results but merely reflects the person’s subjective experience of the assessment. This information is not always recorded. If no information is found “Not indicated” is generated on the report.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 3 of 22
SECTION 2
The theoretical model on which the CPP is based
The holonic structure of the functional processing categories
This section is standard for every report and serves as an introduction to the theoretical foundation of the CPP. The section indicates the manner in which the thinking processes are organised at increasingly complex and inclusive levels - which can be represented as a holon. It is not a phases or stages model. A holon is a hierarchically organised system which consists of various subsystems, each of which incorporates and transcends underlying subsystems. The thinking processes incorporated in the model can be regarded as functional information processing categories. These categories show convergent and discriminant validity. Problem-solving and thinking, at its core, relies on a person’s memory capacity, or the capability to store and recall previously acquired knowledge and experiences. Exploration processes are dependent on the recall of related information and a frame of reference to guide the process of investigation. Once relevant aspects have been identified from a host of incoming stimuli during exploration, these issues need to be analysed, or pulled apart in order to identify the building blocks and their interrelationships in a precise, accurate, rule-based and systematic manner. Once analysed, the person’s understanding of the issue is structured in a coherent and meaningful manner. This may involve the conceptualisation, formulation and representation of the information involved. A final structure may, however, need to be changed, transformed, and contextualised given the purpose of the exercise. This may involve restructuring, reconceptualization and logical reasoning processes of a convergent and divergent nature to generate a new solution to a problem or challenge. All of these processes are performance processes, as they are directly focused on the task. The complete thinking process is, however, highly integrated and neither of a linear nature nor does it reflect a strict hierarchy. The performance processes are also guided by metacognitive awareness and the conscious or automatic application of metacognitive guidelines. Metacognition therefore reflects self-awareness in the form of internalised criteria or questions related to the relevance, clarity, accuracy, comprehensiveness, coherence, purposefulness and contextualisation of the processes and information involved. , The first picture in the CPP report gives the structure of the holonic model with many descriptive words to assist understanding of each process. The second picture indicates the metacognitive criteria that guide, and are used to evaluate, the effectiveness of the thinking processes.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 4 of 22
SECTION 3
Suitable SST work environment
The CPP cognitive assessment is based on a number of theoretical models which are integrated to explain cognitive functioning in the work environment. The previously explained holonic model of processing is linked to the Stratified System Theory (SST), the Requisite Organisations (RO) and the Viable Systems Model (VSM). The Stratified Systems Theory (SST) also referred to as the Requisite Organisations (RO) model of E Jaques, the Viable Systems Model (VSM) of S Beer and M Prinsloo’s work on cognitive complexity are thus capitalised on for the purposes of the CPP report. The Worlds of Work picture below is a simplified graphic representation of the various work environments proposed by the work complexity models. Although the work involved in operational and strategic environments become (quantitatively) more complex and uncertain towards the strategic side of the spectrum, it should be pointed out that the various work environments also significantly differ in terms of qualitative criteria as well. The operational environment focuses on value creation, knowledge and detail. The strategic environment involves the overall direction of processes and decisions given its focus on ideas, uncertainty and changing circumstances. The picture below is standard and is the same in every report.
Operational and strategic work environments
A graph like the one below can be generated from the results and is unique to the person who has completed the assessment. This gives an indication of the person’s current environment – where the current (red) line crosses the required (green) line. This is indicated again on the right of the line graph where it shows the “Current (2)” indicating the second work environment (Diagnostic Accumulation). This current environment is where the person is presently comfortable working, making decisions and applying their judgement. The potential work environment that a person may be able to master is indicated by the crossing point between the potential (blue) line and the required (green) line. In the example picture this is the fourth work environment known as Parallel Processing (see on the right where it shows this as “Potential (4)”). The person may be effective in dealing with the complexity of the “Potential work environment” if they were to improve and / or adapt their current cognitive approach somewhat to meet the criteria of the potential work environment. The realisation of one’s cognitive potential may, however, require training and experience. It is also largely dependent on the person’s current strengths and weaknesses, interest, motivation, exposure and the quality of the learning experiences encountered. It is for this reason that the CPP provides no timeframe for this transition and no indication of the person’s readiness to move to the potential work environment. The various work environments are broad categories that encompass a wide variety of work-related requirements and therefore a person’s current and potential functioning do not necessarily span across different work environments, but may fit into only one of these work categories.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 5 of 22
SECTION 4
Current (and potential) work environment
In this section the person’s current and potential work environment are explained. If the person’s current and potential levels are the same, only one work environment is explained. If the person’s potential level differs from their current level, then the potential work environment is explained on the next page of this section. The elements included in this section are the title of the work environment and a picture that is a symbolic representation of the environment. The most pertinent descriptors are to the right of the picture. Underneath this, standard headings are given for all the work environments and the specific approaches or characteristics of the work environment are described. This describes the qualitative difference between the work environments and their associated requirements. The indication of a suitable work environment(s) is based on a number of cognitive characteristics of the person as measured by the CPP, including:
stylistic preferences,
units of information measuring complexity capabilities;
various work-related preferences and capabilities and
the person’s judgement capability. This guide provides a brief description of each of the five work environments reported on by the CPP.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 6 of 22
Pu
re
O
pe
ra
tio
na
l
Clear methods and goals
Structured environment
Routine work
Linear pathways
Precision
Accuracy
Quality delivery
Dia
gn
ostic
Ac
cu
mu
la
tio
n
Technical-specialist and/or supervisory work
Situational problem-solving
Understand service needs
Understand technicalities
Focus on causes, effects and symptoms
Diagnose and prevent problems
Initiate solutions within parameters, services
Ta
ctic
al Stra
te
gy
Optimising systems efficiencies
Formulate functional strategy
Benchmarking
Goal achievement of a functional unit
Create alternative strategic paths
Evaluate and implement systems
Planning and resource allocation
Follow theoretical guidelines
Project management
Professional work
Pa
ra
lle
l P
ro
ce
ssin
g
Integrate dynamic systems (value chains, supply-
demand factors)
Synchronise parallel pathways
Use trade-offs to maintain progress
Coordinate functional units
Formulate business processes and broad business
strategy
Ensure organisational viability
Systems focused
Maintain the pace of and monitor interacting
projects
Pu
re
Stra
te
gic
Construct unified whole systems
Formulate strategic intent
Deal with kaleidoscope of macro-economic events
and variables
Consider social and environmental impacts
Ensure viability of the industry
Integration of various industry offerings
Identify and impact philosophical trends in the
industry
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 7 of 22
SECTION 5
Work-related processing dimensions
This section is related to the Worlds of work graph. These dimensions can be seen as preferences and capabilities that pull the person either to the operational world of work on the left or the strategic world of work on the right. The scores indicated in the right hand, Strategic orientation column are numerically related to the different levels of work. The scores below broadly apply for each of the work environments. The person’s scores on the various dimensions should be integrated to understand his/her work-related preferences and skills.
Pure Operational 0-40
Diagnostic Accumulation 40-60
Tactical Strategy 60-70
Parallel Processing 70-77
Pure Strategic 77+
This means that if a person has a score of 54 on Dynamic complexity, they will most likely effectively manage the type of dynamic information that one would expect within the Diagnostic Accumulation environment. These above mentioned scores do not apply for the left hand, Operational column though. The constructs in the Operational column are often, but not necessarily, the opposites of those found in the adjacent right hand column, with the exception of the Detail versus Dynamic complexity dimension. Scores in the Operational column can be considered relatively high if they are above 50 or if there is an “overlap” between a particular Operational score and its associated Strategic score, for example a score of 60 on Structured and a score of 70 on Unstructured.
Operational Orientation Strategic Orientation
Detail complexity
This score may indicate a high IQ, but not necessarily. A
high score here may indicate that the person has skill in
dealing with technical detail, even though they may
avoid it. A low score here may indicate that the person
avoids detail even though they may have the capacity to
work with it.
Dynamic complexity
This score reflects the application of complex,
systems thinking of interactive and non-linear issues.
This dimension is associated with an awareness of
circularity, interactivity and system dynamics. A
particularly low score on Dynamic complexity as
compared to the other Strategic work-related
dimensions may indicate that the person applies a
somewhat more fragmented, linear-causal approach
to reasoning than an integrative approach.
Tangible information
A high score here indicates a preference for well-
defined, practical issues and hands-on information or
work.
Intangible information
Overall, a preference for theoretical information. If the
sum of the scores on Tangible and Intangible
information is over 100, then the person may relatively
easily adapt to tangible or practical as well as
intangible or theoretical work requirements. A
particularly low score on the Intangible dimension as
compared to the other Strategic work-related
dimensions may indicate a tangible approach, an
avoidance of vague ideas and hypothetical
information as well as a lack of flexibility to learn or
acquire theoretical concepts.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 8 of 22
Short-term focus
The application of a trial-and-error approach which can
be characterised as an impatience for feedback and
possibly inadequate planning. A high score here can
indicate that the person prefers to view problems
simplistically and prefers to know quickly if they have
done the work correctly.
Long-term focus
The application of a disciplined, consequential and
rigorous approach. A high score here may indicate
cognitive discipline and follow through. If the sum of
Short-term and Long-term focus is above 100, then it
may be an indication of cognitive capability to apply
logical reasoning processes combined with some
degree of emotional reactivity or impatience. A
particularly low score on Long-term focus as
compared with the other Strategic work-related
dimensions may indicate demotivation or disinterest.
Structured contexts
A high score here indicates a preference for and a need
for structure. This may entail either the tendency to
independently structure information, or the tendency to
need others to structure work-related information for
them.
Unstructured contexts
Very simply, the preference of, awareness of and skill
to deal with unfamiliar information by capitalising on
own knowledge, experience, reasoning capability, and
most importantly, intuition to clarify vague issues. Low
confidence in own intuitive insights and the tendency
to disregard own “gut level” awareness may lower this
score. If the sum of Structured and Unstructured
contexts is above 100, then it may be an indication of
both reliance on own intuitive insights and the skill to
structure information. A relatively low score on
Unstructured contexts as compared to the person’s
scores on the other Strategic work-related dimensions
may indicate that the person lacks judgement skills,
tends to suppress intuitive insights in favour of an
analytical approach or feels unsure when confronted
with vagueness and unfamiliarity.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 9 of 22
SECTION 6
Complexity and unit of information
This section indicates the person’s capacity and preference to capitalise on particular Units of information, which are linearly linked to the complexity requirements of each of the five work environments. Individuals use different Units of information when processing information and solving problems. The CPP externalises and tracks the level of complexity used by a person when solving problems and conceptualising issues. A mismatch between a person’s work requirements and the unit of information they generally use, may cause problems. If the person is placed in a work position where the complexity requirements exceeds the unit of information they generally use, then the person may become overly stressed, focus on irrelevant aspects, micromanage subordinates and make weak decisions. If a person is placed in a job with a lower level of complexity than that used by the person, the person may find the work too easy, unchallenging or uninteresting, become bored, demotivated or dissatisfied with their job or focus on other aspects to satisfy their need for cognitive stimulation. Some individuals show the preference and capability to work at various levels of complexity Their CPP report will reflect all the various levels of complexity or units of information they tapped into during their CPP assessment. Such people normally are most comfortable with the least complex Unit of information. They show the capacity to deal with more complex Unit(s) of information, though, although they may not necessarily apply this capacity confidently or consistently.
Unit of information Description
Separate elements is associated with the Pure Operational work environment. People who prefer this unit of information may focus on delivering quality
services and products.
Relationships and linear causality is associated with the Diagnostic Accumulation work environment.
People who prefer this unit of information often focus on technical
problem solving or categorising detail in order to generalise.
Tangible systems is associated with the Tactical Strategy work
environment.
People who prefer this unit of information may focus on optimising system
efficiencies.
Dynamic and interactive systems is associated with the Parallel
Processing work environment.
People who prefer this unit of information often focus on conceptualising
change and integration or on modelling dynamic information.
Chaos and emerging patterns is associated with the Pure Strategy work
environment.
People who prefer this unit of information tend to focus on integrative
concepts such as philosophical trends and implications.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 10 of 22
SECTION 7
Cognitive styles
The cognitive styles primarily describe the way a person tends to deal with unfamiliar information. However, it is highly likely that the person will generally apply those same stylistic preferences in familiar contexts as well. Cognitive styles can be described as broad cognitive response tendencies and should be understood as the most frequent behaviour during the assessment. The definition of the particular styles may not be exactly what is generally associated with the title word. Logical style, for example, implies disciplined thinking in a consequential and process-based manner to transform information structures or to identify implications and consequences. This goes beyond the meaning of the layman’s term “logical”. Some of the styles can be influenced or magnified by certain personality and environmental factors. An example is the Reflective style, which may indicate a level of caution, a risk avoidant personality trait, internalised cultural values or possible exposure to high risk or punitive environments where mistakes are not tolerated. Certain stylistic tendencies are also reinforced or adopted in certain educational and work environments. Examples include the highly analytical requirements of certain financial and scientific career fields, or the creative and ideas-oriented cognitive approaches required by arts and, to some extent, the social sciences. If a person capitalises on varied stylistic approaches during the assessment, it is indicative of adaptability and the programme generates a 15th “style” referred to as Balanced style. This indicates a flexible approach that equally capitalises on detail-analytical, integrative and learning tendencies. As these styles are related to how the person goes about problem-solving, it can help with the identification of a suitable work environment. The order of all the cognitive styles is given briefly in this section in the report along with the top styles utilised by the person. A brief description of all the styles is given here:
BA
LA
NC
ED
The tendency to be flexible, use a variety of analytical and holistic approaches combined with a strong learning orientation. L
EA
RN
IN
G
The tendency to seek stimulation and acquire skill and understanding for the purpose of adaptation, growth, mastery.
HO
LIST
IC
The tendency to see the big picture whilst being aware of the relevant subcomponents and their interconnections.
AN
AL
YT
IC
AL
The tendency to apply rules, work systematically, break the whole into subcomponents and identify interrelationships between components.
QU
IC
K
IN
SIG
HT
The tendency for subconscious processing followed by quick grasp.
ST
RU
CT
UR
ED
The tendency to impose order on / contain an unstructured situation
IN
TU
IT
IV
E
The tendency to tune into an insight and sense possibilities in vague situations
ME
TA
PH
OR
IC
The tendency to represent the situation through symbols, metaphors and abstractions.
LO
GIC
AL
The tendency to apply rule-based arguments in a rigorous and intentional manner to generate convergent and/or divergent solutions.
EX
PL
OR
AT
IV
E
The tendency to investigate situations in-depth and gather information.
IN
TE
GR
AT
IV
E
The tendency to synthesise and blend discrepant aspects to understand and formulate coherent and meaningful structures. R
EF
LE
CT
IV
E
The tendency to carefully consider situations and check facts and conclusions
ME
MO
RY
The tendency to rely on already acquired knowledge and skill / past information to guide own approach and conclusions.
TR
IA
L-A
ND
-
ER
RO
R
The tendency for an unplanned and random approach to unfamiliar environments.
RE
AC
TIV
E
The tendency to act impulsively or emotionally without applying a rigorous approach.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 11 of 22
SECTION 8
Rank order of cognitive styles
This section is related to the cognitive styles applied, but takes the interpretation further. This is done by looking at the metacognitive criteria applied in the person’s top five styles and the implications for the person’s cognitive functioning. This section also highlights the developmental areas for the styles least applied. The purpose of this section is to provide an overall holistic impression of the person’s thinking skills and how they solve problems. The implications are supposed to allow the person to gain self-insight and correct any counterproductive tendencies they may have in their thinking. The best way to interpret this section may be to look for similar words or implications across the styles, especially in both frequently applied and less applied style sections. Top five styles are given as the most prominent stylistic preferences – styles most applied during the assessment. The one applied the most is ranked as one and the list moves down from there. The number of styles given here will include more than the person’s most prominent styles. In the least applied styles section, no styles to three styles are given. This depends on whether the Trial-and-error or Reactive styles were generated in the least frequently applied styles. If these styles are at the bottom of the list, they will be ignored and not generated. The number of styles will then decrease by one or two. The styles are also checked to see if they were significantly underutilised. If no styles were significantly underutilised, then this section is left out.
SECTION 9
Task requirements and associated processing tendencies
This section is based on research indicating definite individual and cultural differences in cognitive approach to problem-solving. For purposes of representation, the typical factual, structured and tangible approaches are represented as “left brain” and the typical integrated, intuitive and learning approaches as “right brain” preferences. The use of the left versus right brain metaphor should, however, not be interpreted literally. The left side of the graph is associated with the analytical, detailed, tangible and structured approach as encapsulated by the Analytical, Structured and Reflective styles. The right side of the graph reflects a more creative, integrative and intuitive approach associated with the styles Holistic, Metaphoric, Intuitive, Learning and Quick insight. The styles towards the top of the graph are more intellectually driven while those towards the bottom are more emotionally driven and orientated towards action. This too involves a mere categorisation of the approaches rather than a representation of brain architecture. There are purposefully no scores generated on this graph as it is designed to give an overall impression of the individual’s preference towards a quadrant of the graph. It is not about measuring the minute differences between scores. However, the results are the averages of many broad categories of functioning, so relative preferences may substantially and meaningfully reflect the person’s preference. The current and potential lines indicate the person’s current orientation to the task requirements and what they are capable of achieving in the various areas or the option to further develop this orientation.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 12 of 22
SECTION 10
Speed and pace control
This section looks at the time factor in problem-solving in a very general way. While the scores usually range from 25 to 75, a higher score is not necessarily preferable. The focus here is on relationships between scores thus it is the differences between scores that lead to interesting insights. The various time-related constructs are calculated independently, in other words, a person may obtain a relatively high score on both “Pace control” and on “Quick closure” if there is sufficient evidence of both these tendencies. Speed of work is seen as the rate at which the person tends to work and solve problems. The Quick insight score indicates the rate of understanding. This concept is traditionally referred to as Power in psychology. Most cognitive tests contaminate Power and Speed constructs although they are actually separate constructs. A comparison of a person’s scores on Speed and Quick insight provides insight into the person’s functioning and can assist them in changing the speed at which they work to optimise their effectiveness. The two constructs, of Speed and Quick insight, should ideally be aligned. A difference of 10 or more between the scores of these two constructs can be regarded as significant. So, if the person’s Speed is 10 points higher than their Quick insight then the rate at which they work is faster than that at which they gain understanding. If the person’s Speed is significantly lower than their Quick insight, then the person could benefit from working slightly faster without having to compromise their effectiveness. If the scores are within 10 points of each other, the person can be said to have worked effectively for their pace of understanding. The Pace control indicates awareness of the task complexity and the allocation of more time to more complex aspects of a task. Quick closure score can suggest impatience and jumping to conclusions if a person’s score is above 40. This may be related to emotional factors and possibly an avoidance of vague information or situations.
SECTION 11
Information processing competencies
This section of the CPP is often misinterpreted. The represented scores are not percentiles but are
calculated using normalised t-scores. High scores are not necessarily desirable. A person’s profile needs to
be contextualised or matched to the cognitive requirements of their work environment. In other words,
consider the job the person is applying for and their desired functioning given the cognitive competency
requirements of a position.
The processes described in the bar graph follow the processes of thinking in the model used by the CPP. A
person uses memory as the basis of problem-solving and then explores, analyses, structures and
transforms that information into an answer or a solution. This is not necessarily a linear, but a highly
integrated process. Metacognition guides the application of these processes and it involves the person
asking themselves task-relevant questions to guide their thinking (for example: “is this relevant”, “is this
clear”).
Each of the processing competencies is built of many sub-competencies, of which only some are given in the
CPP report. For example, Analytical processing encompasses a detailed, precise, factual, linear, systematic,
rule based approach to break a situation into its subcomponents and to identify interrelationships between
these elements. The CPP report, however, only reflects the overall Analytical score and the tendency to
apply a rule-oriented approach.
Some of the sub-competencies tend to facilitate strategic growth and higher scores indicate stronger
strategic capacity. If applied minimally or excessively, they could hinder one’s performance. This type of
interpretation is done by a CPP Trained individual.
Further, certain special insights can be drawn from the Information processing competencies graph. These
special insights pertain to relationships between particular sub-competencies.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 13 of 22
If Quick insight learning is higher than Gradual improvement learning by 12 points or more (referred to as
“significant”), then the person may get bored and require challenges or variety to keep their interest. They
are likely to prefer the challenge of complex or theoretical problems rather than gradual and practical
exposure. If Gradual improvement learning is significantly higher than Quick insight learning, the person may
prefer a more gradual and experiential involvement in learning.
If Verbal abstraction/ Conceptualisation is higher than Judgement by more than 15 points (here the bar for
“significance” is raised somewhat given the distribution curves of the constructs involved) then the person
may not always clarify issues before formulating and communicating their thoughts, which may well confuse
others, especially those with a more linear and analytical cognitive approach. They may benefit from always
trying to identify the core issue and by learning to graphically represent their messages and ideas before
sharing these. People with this profile sometimes naturally develop the habit of asking other people if they
are following their train of thought. This can provide them with the feedback to eventually address
weaknesses in communication thereby improving their communication skills. Examples of these weaknesses
include assuming that the other person has the same information as you, not providing the other person with
relevant background information, mixing up the logical order of the story, mixing metaphors or having an
abstract idea and not clarifying the vagueness sufficiently. A relatively low score on Verbal abstraction or
conceptualisation may indicate a reliance on a visual mode of information processing (as opposed to an
auditive inclination), a factual, analytical orientation, a no-nonsense approach, low level of language
proficiency (of the language being assessed in), anxiety, lower levels of verbal creativity (but not necessarily)
and extreme internalised introversion which has over time affected verbalisation skills.
If the person’s Pragmatic and Judgement scores stand out as significantly lower than the other scores in
their profile, it may indicate that the person tends to lose focus when anxious or in an unfamiliar environment.
This insight needs to be contextualised with other information, such as how the person felt about the
assessment, their stylistic preferences, motivation to complete the assessment amongst other factors. If the
person’s Pragmatic and Judgement scores are high or on a par with the rest of their processing skills, it
indicates adequate focus and clarification of relevant elements.
If the profile presents Analysis and Logical reasoning scores that are significantly lower than the other scores
on the profile, then it is often associated with an inadequate educational background, a dislike for a rigorous,
rule-based approach to reasoning, the impact of emotionality, demotivation to complete the test that resulted
in a lack of interest to understand and reason about the problems or a dislike of the unfamiliar. This may
indicate the risk of the person coming across (especially in unfamiliar environments or when emotional
factors interfere with cognitive functioning), as superficial, inconsistent, short-term, emotional and they may
lack a purposeful and interested approach. If these two scores are higher than the rest of the profile, it
indicates a rigorous, detailed and interested approach as is often the case in specific career groups or fields
such as finance, law and engineering amongst others.
If the person has high scores on both Logical reasoning and Verbal abstraction it is often an indication that
the person shows a tendency and capability to transform information. This person may, given certain
personality characteristics, be open to change and developing new systems, enjoy innovation,
reconceptualising issues, and be flexible and rigorous in approach. Significantly lower scores on these two
processing skills, however, may indicate demotivation or a reluctance to invest energy into rethinking and
reconceptualising information. In extreme cases, this may be an indication of depression although it should
be pointed out that the CPP has not been devised to diagnose brain trauma or pathology.
If the person’s Judgement and Analysis scores are significantly lower than the other scores, it may indicate
that the person is reluctant to analyse and pull apart situations to understand them better and to clarify what
is involved. They may not ask task relevant questions that would clarify a situation for themselves or others.
This can be a result or implication of a poor education and this can be improved via cognitive training and
practice.
The above and other interpretations of a person’s CPP profile are also discussed in the CPP report in the
section on Additional Observations and Development Guidelines.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 14 of 22
SECTION 12
Cognitive strengths and development areas
This table is based on the Information processing competencies and it identifies strengths and developmental
areas according to the scores that the person obtained. A score on a particular construct is compared to both
(a) the person’s average as well as (b) the quantitative requirements of the recommended current work
environment. The scores significantly higher than the person’s average or the work environment requirement,
are considered strengths and the scores significantly lower are considered developmental areas. The
number in the column is indicative of the strength of the difference and based on standard deviation. For
example, a number 2 in terms of strength would suggest that a particular competency or element was higher
than the person’s average or the work environment requirement by approximately one standard deviation.
This section is supposed to provide an overview of the person and the scores should not be analysed in any
great detail. But this section does provide the basis for developmental initiatives such as coaching. If the
section is left out, no significant findings were found: in other words, relatively equal scores were obtained on
most of the processing constructs and these match the requirements of the recommended work environment.
SECTION 13
Learning potential
Learning potential is difficult to predict. The CPP looks at (a) learning curves based on a variety of functions
and evaluates how responsive the person is to training and feedback, and (b) an analysis or comparisons of
inter-score relationships. This provides an overall indication of learning potential, which is given first in this
section. The other insights that can be gained from the report are then given below. If there are no significant
differences between the person’s scores on the various processing dimensions, qualitative learning potential
indices are not indicated. The strength of finding is marked as a score – the higher the number the more
significant the finding.
The section starts with the person’s strengths that they can capitalise on to improve their overall functioning
or their learning.
The second part deals with developmental areas that relate to learning potential. These are the thinking
styles, tendencies and behaviours that the person can eliminate or acknowledge and work around to
increase their learning potential.
SECTION 14
CPP summary report
This section is a simple summary of the main points in the CPP report. It gives a brief overview of the current
and potential work environments (only current environment will be mentioned if it is the same as the potential
environment). This section further gives an interpretation of the stylistic preferences and then it provides
some insights that a trained CPP practitioner will be able to pick up from the CPP report as these
interpretations have been built into the scoring system. This section is meant to be an easy-to-understand,
comprehensive and insightful section for people not familiar with the CPP.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 15 of 22
SECTION 15
Developmental guidelines
This section is best used in the hands of a professional who has been trained in the CPP as it elaborates on
the relevant developmental areas. It is computer-generated thus it has to be carefully interpreted by the CPP
practitioner as not all the customised, per person indications may apply. The guidelines could merely be seen
as hypothetical areas that may be relevant for the further development of the person. It may be useful for
coaching purposes.
The development guidelines are calculated in terms of the person’s own report and are therefore relative. A
comment regarding “a relatively low Analytical score…” may therefore be indicated for a person with a high
Analytical score, but in combination with even higher scores on other processes. The extent of the finding is
indicated numerically (the higher the number the more significant finding), but some paragraphs are
generated for certain profiles and do not have an indication of strength.
SECTION 16
Graphic representation
This section is not available by default and is used only for selection, comparison or compiling a team
evaluation. It compares a candidate’s profile to a work environment selected by a consultant while generating
the report. Generic work score requirements are reflected and these may differ from the unique requirements
of a particular position that fits into the SST work environment category.
Even though this section can have value for the person being assessed, the real value comes when the
results are combined to see how a team or group of candidates each score on particular sub-dimensions.
This can assist in developing a team training initiative or can be used as part of a developmental programme.
The Contextualised Competency Mapping (CCM) tool provides a more detailed and accurate person-job
matching functionality.
SECTION 17
Final comments
This section gives a reminder that the CPP should be interpreted by a trained and accredited CPP
practitioner. The contact details of the test developer and distributer, Cognadev, are provided in this section
of the report.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 16 of 22
SECTION 18
Glossary of terms
This section of the Quick interpretation guide is not matched to any section of the CPP report, but serves as
a Glossary to all sections of the CPP report.
In psychological reports, certain everyday terms are used, some of which are defined differently from the
associated layman’s term. Here a full glossary of terms is provided where we clarify what the terms mean in
relation to how they were measured in this assessment. The term, the relevant section of the term (in italics)
and the definition is given.
Additional observations and special insights CPP summary report section
Comparing two or more separate results to come to a conclusion or “Special insight”. These insights are
determined from research and are based on the information a CPP accredited individual receives in their
training. These insights are given in a section of the report.
Analysis Information processing competencies
A sub-competency of the main competency Analysis. Analysis here refers to the tendency to independently
and systematically pull situations apart to identify detail elements (referred to as differentiation) and their
interrelationships (referred to as linking).
Analytical style Cognitive styles
A person who uses this style likes to pull information apart, identify relationships between the elements and
links them together. They usually have a precise and detailed approach.
Balanced style Cognitive styles
A person with a Balanced style is likely to be adaptable and able to learn to approach problems in different
ways. They tend to equally use all, or most, of the processing skills that are measured.
Categorisation Information processing competencies
A sub-competency of Structuring / Integration. The score here refers to the degree to which the person
created external order and structured tangible elements during the assessment. This categorisation helps a
person manage the complexity of their day-to-day work environment.
Chaos and emerging patterns Complexity and units of information
This unit of information is associated with the Pure Strategic work environment. It involves the application of
systems thinking, thus the consideration of vague, abstract and dynamic elements in complex environments.
CPP accreditation General
A CPP accredited person must attend a three day training course to familiarise themselves with the concepts
and theories used in the CPP report, followed by the submission (and passing) of an assignment. This is
done so that the results are used as intended and to protect people who complete the CPP against abuse of
their results or misinterpretation.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 17 of 22
Cognitive styles Cognitive styles section
These are broad tendencies of thinking or stylistic preferences that an individual uses to approach a new or
unfamiliar problem. These comprise of 14 different styles and an extra Balanced style. The particular
combination as indicated on a person’s CPP report provides an interesting description of the person’s
functioning in general. It is important to remember that personality and emotional factors also affect the
application of thinking skills.
Complexity Information processing competencies
A sub-competency of Structuring / Integration. This is related to the units of information, indicating the
number of elements involved, their interrelationships and the level of abstraction of the information. It is given
in this section as an averaged score.
Current work environment Suitable SST work environment
The work environment (or world of work) where the person currently feels most comfortable applying
themselves. This is directly related to the level of complexity (unfamiliarity) a person feels comfortable
dealing with and where they feel comfortable applying their judgment.
Dynamic and interactive systems Complexity and units of information
This unit of information is associated with the Parallel Processing work environment. It involves systems
thinking across multiple systems and also involves the variable of time.
Exploration Information processing competencies
A sub-competency of the main competency Exploration. Exploration here refers to the effectiveness of the
person’s investigation of new information and the extent, width and depth to which they examined a situation.
Explorative style Cognitive styles
A person with this style may tend to spend most time and effort on investigating a problem to find a solution.
They thoroughly explore many different sorts and sources of information. They may explore without purpose
when confronted with unfamiliar information.
Gradual improvement learning Information processing competencies
See Learning, Gradual improvement
Graphic summary Graphic summary section
A person-job competency comparison of the person and the job requirements of a position. This section is
done fully by Cognadev’s CCM system, but a simple and generic version is provided by the CPP report to
assist interpretation for purposes of group selection, placement and development.
Holistic style Cognitive styles
A person who uses a Holistic style sees the big picture and emphasizes wholeness and unity while
remaining aware of relevant detail. They identify core aspects when formulating the big picture.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 18 of 22
Holons Theory of the CPP
The theoretical model on which the CPP is based reflects a holonic structure and involves a number of
systems, each of which transcends and includes the preceding systems. For example, cells are included and
transcended by organs, which are included and transcended by organisms, followed by societies. The
holonic principle also applies to psychological constructs such as cognition and consciousness.
Information processing competencies Information processing competencies section
The scores for the tendency to, and the effectiveness by which the candidate used the different processing
competencies.
Integration Information processing competencies
A sub-competency of Structuring / Integration. The person’s ability to pull together discrepant or fragmented
information into a coherent and meaningful whole.
Integrative style Cognitive styles
A person who uses the integrative style prefers the challenge of reconciling discrepant, ambiguous and
fragmented elements to create a coherent whole. They tend to formulate hypotheses and create models.
Intuitive style Cognitive styles
When someone uses the Intuitive style, they interpret complex information at a gut level. They can integrate
information, form concepts and come up with creative and unusual solutions. They are likely to be open-
minded, self-aware and perceptive.
Judgement Information processing competencies
Judgement involves an awareness of what is unclear, optimal exploration, clarification by using intuition and
contextualisation of own conclusions. In other words, the degree the person capitalises on intuitive insights to
clarify unstructured and vague information. It is a critical prerequisite for effective cognitive functioning in
complex environments.
Learning, Gradual improvement Information processing competencies
A preference for experiential, step-by-step learning combined with feedback on own performance.
Learning potential Learning potential section
The capacity of the person to (a) acquire new cognitive skills and (b) expand their knowledge base. This is
measured by tracking a person’s learning curves and by interpreting a number of cognitive tendencies such
as boredom, strategizing of own approach, etc.
Learning, Quick insight Information processing competencies
The ability to quickly grasp concepts, contextualise and apply theoretical insights.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 19 of 22
Learning style Cognitive styles
A person who uses this style is usually adaptable, curious, flexible and able to learn new ways of thinking.
They may easily be bored and often seek novelty, variation and cognitive challenge.
Logical reasoning Information processing competencies
A sub-competency of Transformation. This refers to a rigorous and critical, rule-based approach to
reasoning. Implied by this score is a disciplined and consequential process approach to identify implications,
consequences and to transform information structures.
Logical style Cognitive styles
A person who uses this style follows reasoning processes through in a logical manner. They are usually
critical thinkers who take a disciplined approach. They often prefer cognitive challenge and may combine an
ideas orientation with a rule-based orientation.
Memory strategies Information processing competencies
A sub-competency of Memory, but this also relates to metacognition as the person asks themselves what to
remember and how to remember it. This score gives an indication of the effectiveness of the person’s
memory strategies, which may include hypothesising, structuring of information, practice and internalisation,
as well as integration of new elements into existing information structures.
Memory style Cognitive styles
As the name suggests, this style shows the tendency to rely on own memory capacity in retaining and
recalling information. The person relies on past experience and a knowledge base. They are usually
motivated, careful and have high personal standards in terms of cognitive performance – which leads to
good concentration. This may be associated with a need for certainty, but also supports high levels of
cognitive functioning, such as the identification of emerging patterns in chaotic contexts.
Memory, Use of Information processing competencies
A sub-competency of memory. This score relates to the degree to which the person relies on their memory. If
a person remembers aspects of a task, it is a sign that they concentrated well and focused on the task. This
competency does not indicate “memory ability” as such.
Metacognition General
Metacognition refers to an awareness of one’s own thinking processes. It is the key catalyst of effective
thinking, conceptualisation and problem solving. It involves the application of internalised criteria to guide the
various thinking processes. These criteria include issues such as relevance, clarity, accuracy, purpose and
meaning. Metacognition thus facilitates economic and purposeful processing, self-monitoring and –
correction, learning, the application of a logical-analytical and integrative approach to thinking and effective
capitalisation on intuition.
Metaphoric style Cognitive styles
A person who uses the style often views problems abstractly or symbolically. They formulate unusual ideas
to accommodate unfamiliar or discrepant information. This style often involves the use of both verbal and
visual modes of thinking.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 20 of 22
Potential work environment Suitable SST work environment
The work environment that the person shows the capability / potential (given certain cognitive development
or changes) to progress towards. In other words, there is evidence that the person, at times, showed the
necessary processing orientation and dealt with the necessary complexity to meet some of the requirements
of the Potential work environment, but failed to do so consistently. There may also be certain processing
requirements that were not met such as judgement capability in vague and unfamiliar contexts. Further
development of the person’s cognitive skills are thus required to meet the requirements of the potential work
environment.
Pragmatic Information processing competencies
A sub-competency of Exploration. This is an indication of how practical the person is and whether they tend
to focus on tangible and / or routine information. This score is based on the person’s discrimination between
relevant and irrelevant information in structured contexts.
Quick closure Speed and pace control
Quick closure here refers to closing a situation (completing a problem) before the person has gathered all the
relevant information and achieved clarity as to what is involved. A high number on this construct indicates
that the person may make assumptions or come to unsupported conclusions.
Quick insight Speed and pace control
Quick insight in this section refers to the “power”, which is defined as the capability to grasp concepts or the
rate of understanding. This is how quickly the person effectively solves problems.
Quick insight learning Information processing competencies
See Learning, Quick insight
Quick insight style Cognitive styles
A person who uses the Quick insight style emphasizes speed and tends to grasp concepts quickly and
relatively easily.
Reactive style Cognitive styles
Someone who uses the Reactive style is likely to work quickly but inaccurately. They may lack cognitive
discipline and strategies for complexity. They may experience performance anxiety or a lack motivation.
Reflective style Cognitive styles
If someone uses the Reflective style, they show a very careful approach and revisit information once it has
been processed. They are careful and thorough.
Relationships and linear causality Complexity and units of information
This unit of information focuses on cause and effect relationships. It is associated with the Diagnostic
Accumulation work environment. Although technical information may be complex and require specialist
training, it is well-structured and does often focus on reasonably straightforward reasoning.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 21 of 22
Rules Information processing competencies
A sub-competency of Analysis. This score refers to the focus and application of the rules of the game.
Separate elements Complexity and units of information
Separate elements is associated with the Pure Operational work environment. The separate elements
referred to are usually of a tangible, obvious or routine nature and are dealt with separately and resolved
before moving onto the next.
Speed of work Speed and pace control
Simply, this is the person’s rate of problem-solving. This number is likely to reflect the speed at which the
person works in reality.
Structured style Cognitive styles
A person with a Structured style identifies core elements, orders information in a meaningful way and
formulates generalisations.
Tangible systems Complexity and units of information
Tangible systems is linked to the Tactical Strategy work environment and involves systems thinking within a
single observable system or functional unit.
Task requirements Task requirements and associated processing tendencies
How a person goes about solving the task and general ways they process information. This section provides
a broader view than the Cognitive styles because similar cognitive styles are grouped together into the broad
categories of Intellectual, Emotional, Structured and Creative tasks. The styles also are either driven by
Logic, Ideas, Knowledge or Challenges. This section should be taken as a broad snapshot of a person, so
numbers are not given, but minute differences between the person’s preferences may have a large impact
on their behaviour.
Trial-and-error style Cognitive styles
This style investigates information through an unplanned and random approach. A person who uses this
style may show a lack of metacognitive awareness of their thinking processes, and proceed in a vague and
unsystematic way – especially in unfamiliar contexts. It may indicate performance anxiety.
Unfamiliar environment General
The CPP is designed to assess, among other things, a person’s response to unfamiliar information. This is
done to limit the impact of previously acquired skills and knowledge on their cognitive profile. This enables
the comparison of individual profiles relatively free from extraneous variables. Unfamiliar information also
triggers the application of a wide variety of cognitive skills that may not be required in familiar contexts,
thereby providing a more comprehensive picture of a person’s repertoire of processing skills.
Given the CPPs capitalisation on unfamiliar information, reassessment of an individual may impact on the
validity of the report.
Cognadev © Quick Interpretation Guide Page 22 of 22
Unit of information Complexity and units of information
The complexity that the person usually prefers to work with. Complexity refers to the number of elements
involved, their interrelationships and level of abstraction. The preferred unit of information on the CPP report
should ideally match the person’s current level of work and the complexity of their actual work. Mismatches
usually lead to stress or boredom.
Use of memory Information processing competencies
See Memory, Use of
Verbal conceptualisation Information processing competencies
A sub-competency of Transformation. It refers to the understanding and formulation of ideas – be those
factual or unusual, creative, abstract or verbose (story telling). It may indicate verbal eloquence and the
tendency to capitalise on auditive processing modalities. Low scores may indicate a technical, factual
inclination, inadequate language skills, anxiety or a tendency to capitalise on visual processing modes.
Work-related processing dimensions Work-related processing dimensions section
Gives an indication of a person’s cognitive performance in terms of four dimensions in the operational
domain and four related dimensions in the strategic domain. This gives a cognitive snapshot of the person’s
preferences in the work-environment.
Worlds of work Suitable SST work environment
CPP results have been linked to the SST work requirements reflecting complexity of work. Whereas the SST
estimates work complexity in terms of the time frames of work, the CPP tracks the preference and capability
to work with particular units of information, the application of particular stylistic tendencies, judgement
capability and work related preferences and capabilities. This is linked to five work environments – each with
unique cognitive requirements. Should a person’s CPP profile be matched to the SST work environment of
his / her actual job, the person may experience job satisfaction and a sense of being in flow.