Scientific Basis

SCIENTIFIC
BASIS

The Higher platform is based on solid scientific research and practice over the course of the past 55 years.

The methodologies used have empowered small businesses and large organizations to enhance the success of their operations and the performance of their personnel.

Higher Executive Validations enable organizations to hire the best applicants by comparing their behavior to the behavioral requirements for their positions.

Higher Platform
Foundation

The Higher Executive Validation reports enable employees to achieve their potential and the reports produced to draft prospects and develop players were utilized by every team in the MLB and NHL, most teams in the NFL and NBA, and Olympic teams in the USA, Canada and England.

Most assessments were created by psychologists for psychologists. The Higher Executive Validations were developed by business leaders and executives who truly understand the demands of business and life balance. This innovative approach includes insights from professors of psychology at MIT, Kellogg School of Management, CalTech, with comprehensive validation from the University of California at Berkeley.

The Higher platform has 10 exclusive features not available from any other company, including: most comprehensive assessment, most comprehensive feedback, Position Compatibility Summary Forms, Assessment Validity Controls to assure answers to the Executive Validation accurately describe the participant’s personality, and others.

The benefits of utilizing the Higher Executive Validation are higher sales, profits and personnel performance by reducing labor turnover, increasing production, improving quality, enhancing communication and effectiveness of management, and others.

Accuracy

To screen for accuracy, we ask questions that ensure the individual was undistracted, that he understood the questions and that he replied carefully, rather than impetuously.

An example would be:

The automobile was invented in 1960.

The correct answer is “Disagree".

Of course, but occasionally participants choose another answer because they impulsively rush through the questions or may have difficulty reading. Selecting a wrong answer on two such questions would invalidate the entire assessment labelling it as “Inaccurate”.

Typical reasons for Inaccuracy include:

Inability to comprehend the questions
Failure to pay attention (checking the wrong answer)
Excessive levels of stress
Inability to read at a 9th-grade level
Deliberate attempt to “fool the test”

We discard such results, inviting the participant to retake the assessment.

Objectivity

We screen for objectivity using two kinds of questions. First, we describe scenarios using common, typical human frailties that everyone has experienced. If the individual denies or minimizes the presence of these behaviors, the results are considered to be “Positively Biased”. An example might be “I have broken things in the past.”

We do not accuse anyone of deliberate manipulation if their answers lack objectivity. Many people mean well, but tend to confuse their good intentions with their actual, sometimes awkward, behavior. We pose questions that describe extraordinary, superhuman behaviors found only in comic books and fantasy movies. If an individual lays claim to a certain number of these unnatural qualities, we determine that the profile results are biased.

We recommend that managers only allow three attempts maximum; otherwise we run the risk of an applicant memorizing their previous replies and eventually providing us a valid, but “selectively biased” assessment.

Why a person’s results might be invalid:

A. Exceptionally Private Nature – some people refuse to let us know them very well, saying “I don’t like for anyone to really know me.”
B. Argumentative – these folks debate with the sentence structure of our questions.
C. Fearful/Distrusting – some individuals are afraid of what we’ll do with the information, wondering: “Will the results be used against me somehow?”
D. Learning Style – some people don’t read well.
E. Trying to Improve – candidates may be sincerely working on a particular behavior.
F. Unconsciously Adding Words – some people add words that are not on the screen in an attempt to steer the question in a more suitable direction.
G. Desperation – “I really (need/need to hold onto) this job.”
H. Perfectionist/Moralizer – those with a “performance orientation” put excessive pressure on themselves to excel and can’t stand to admit they ever make a mistake. They say: “I never lie. I always maintain a sense of honor and duty.” Watch for absolutes in the way they express themselves.
I. Intellectual Arrogance – one who wants to beat the test. They say to themselves: “That question is poorly phrased” or “What they should have asked is…”
J. They think only in “Teams” – especially found in executives who think, “My team and I can do anything.”
K. Hyper-confident – those who believe they hung the moon in its orbit.
L. Delusional – If I close my eyes tight and wish upon a falling star, anything can happen.

Definition of the 4 trait
groups:

Interpersonal Traits: This group includes characteristics that influence how an individual interacts with people. This includes relationships and communications with peers, managers, subordinates, clients, family and friends. Friendly or reserved? Expressive or shy? Trusting, or naive or cynical? Empathetic or cold? The six traits in this group are Sociability, Recognition, Conscientiousness, Exhibition, Trust, and Nurturance.

Organizational Traits: This trait group will determine how an individual handles the tasks and responsibilities assigned. How will he/she function in our work environment? Disciplined or intuitive? Accountable or defensive? Quick learner, or not? The six traits in this group are Alertness, Structure, Order, Flexibility, Creativity, and Responsibility.

SCIENTIFIC BASIS

SCIENTIFIC
BASIS