Cognitive Process Profile (CPP)The Cognitive Process Profile (CPP) is a computerised exercise that has been designed to externalise and dynamically track a person’s cognitive processes

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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Documents

Cognitive Process Profile (CPP)The Cognitive Process Profile (CPP) is a computerised exercise that has been designed to externalise and dynamically track a person’s cognitive processes