Noncognitive Versus Cognitive Predictors for Academic Success: Opportunities and Limits of Self-Assessments Illustrated by the Viennese Products

• In Event: Roundtable Session 10
  In Roundtable Session: Factors Predicting Success in College: An International Perspective

Abstract

Self‐assessments recently gained a lot of attention in German‐speaking countries, especially regarding economic efficiency of limited university admissions. Self‐assessments enable university applicants to test their qualification for the intended study field – usually unproctored, anonymous and just for information without binding consequences. The unproctored but – due to the lack of consequences – low‐stake setting offers specific opportunities and limits (e.g. Kubinger et al., 2007): Conventional aptitude tests primarily focus on ability tests, regarding the risk of faking‐good behavior of applicants in personality questionnaires. In contrast, self‐assessments offer the opportunity to measure personality traits as well. Traits like conscientiousness show a relevant contribution to academic success (e.g. O`Connor & Paunonen, 2007), which also emerges in the Viennese self‐assessments. Usually the inventory of self‐assessments includes cognitive tests and personality questionnaires. Beyond that the Viennese self‐assessments include experimental based behavior tasks (based on the principle of R.B. Cattell; see Kubinger, 2009) which are impossible or at least very hard to fake. Especially with the results of the Viennese self-assessments it could be shown, that non‐cognitive traits and work styles show a noteworthy relation to academic success. The presentation shows the conception of the Viennese self‐assessments and first results regarding academic success: After establishing the profile of qualification for several study fields tailor‐made test batteries for psychology, architecture and engineering were generated; another self‐assessment for IT and electro-technology is in development. Cognitive and non‐cognitive test results will be discussed regarding their relevance.

Author

• Klaus D. Kubinger, University of Vienna