A uniform pass mark on every section is rejecting almost an entire candidate type

7:34 pm 17/Aug/26

A uniform pass mark on every section is rejecting almost an entire candidate type

Requiring the same pass mark on every test section rejects almost the whole group strongest on reasoning. VCO Group data on over 5,000 aptitude tests.

VCO Group's analysis of more than 5,000 completed aptitude tests across Young Talent Programmes in Vietnam shows candidates fall into four distinct capability types. The rule requiring the same pass mark on every section rejects almost one entire type, even though that group holds the highest logical reasoning scores in the whole dataset and accounts for more than a fifth of everyone who completes the test.

Table of Contents

A uniform pass mark sounds fair, but it is a decision about weighting

The most common scoring approach in multi-section aptitude tests is to require candidates to clear the same pass mark on every section. Fail one section and you fail the test. The rule is easy to explain to a panel, easy to run, and looks fair because every candidate faces the same standard.

In measurement terms, however, it is not a neutral rule. It amounts to declaring that every section matters equally for every role, and that strength in one section cannot compensate for weakness in another. Both assumptions are decisions about weighting, and both are rarely tested against real data.

VCO Group operates the aptitude testing systems for a number of Young Talent programmes in Vietnam, with sections typically covering logical reasoning, numerical reasoning, verbal reasoning, cultural fit and technical knowledge. Holding section-level scores for the same large candidate pool makes it possible to answer a question that any single programme would struggle to answer on its own: who is the uniform pass mark rule actually rejecting.

Four capability types appear in the data

When candidates with complete results are grouped by the shape of their capability profile rather than by total score, four clearly distinct types emerge. The differences between these groups are strongly significant statistically and hold when the data is split and re-examined.

Four capability types among Young Talent candidates and the outcome for each

Capability type	Group size	Outcome under the uniform pass mark rule
Strong across every section	Largest group	Highest pass rate. This is the group the current rule serves well.
Strong on reasoning, weak on verbal and cultural fit	Over 1,100 candidates, more than a fifth of everyone completing the test	Almost nobody passes the round, a rate below 1 per cent, despite this group holding the highest logical reasoning scores in the entire dataset.
Even across sections but at a low level	Substantial group	Does not pass. This outcome matches the purpose of screening.
Low on every section	Smallest group	Does not pass. This outcome matches the purpose of screening.

The line worth noting is the second one. The other three groups produce exactly the outcome the current rule intends. The second group is the only place where the rule is producing a result opposite to what its designers wanted.

Who is being rejected and which roles they suit

The group strong on reasoning but weak on verbal and cultural fit has a striking feature: their logical reasoning scores are higher than those of the group strong across every section. In other words, this is the group with the best reasoning ability in the entire candidate pool, and it is being rejected almost in full.

The reason is specific. The verbal section is the lowest-scoring section for every group in the data, and it is also where the gap between academic disciplines is widest. Candidates from engineering and natural science backgrounds are typically dragged down on this section, while their reasoning ability sits in the top band. Once the pass mark is set uniformly, the verbal section becomes the decisive gate in place of the reasoning section.

This is also usually the group best suited to analytically oriented roles: data, finance, supply chain, operations, quality control. For a Management Trainee programme with streams covering those functions, losing almost that entire candidate group at the second round is a direct loss to the quality of the final cohort.

To avoid a misreading, this needs saying clearly: it does not mean lowering the standard. It means the standard is being applied in a way that does not reflect what each role actually requires.

The alternative: a weighted average with a low floor

The fix is not complicated and does not require a new question bank. Replace the rule requiring every section to clear the same pass mark with a weighted composite score, plus a low floor applied to each section.

Weights are set by what the role actually requires. For an analytically oriented stream, numerical and logical reasoning carry higher weight. For a sales and marketing stream, verbal reasoning and cultural fit carry higher weight. The same test and the same candidate pool, with two different weighting schemes, will select two different groups, and both will be right for the role in question.

The low floor plays a completely different role from a pass mark. It is not used to differentiate candidates, only to exclude papers left blank or completed without effort. In the data, the level corresponding to the bottom 10 per cent is a sensible point for this purpose.

One further point is worth considering in any redesign. If the test has to be shortened for reasons of time or completion rate, the cultural fit section should be kept. In the data it is the only section that carries information the reasoning sections do not, because its correlation with the cognitive components is low.

What selection science says about combining multiple tools

The weighted approach is not a proprietary idea. It is what personnel selection research has described for a long time, and it has been reinforced by the most recent findings.

Research by Sackett, Zhang, Berry and Lievens, published in 2022 in the Journal of Applied Psychology, recalibrated the predictive validity ranking of selection tools after identifying a systematic flaw in the range restriction correction used for more than two decades. The most notable result is that structured interviews moved above cognitive ability tests on predictive validity for job performance.

In their 2023 follow-up, the same authors set out how to design a selection system in the light of the new figures. One conclusion bears directly on the problem here: tool combinations with and without a cognitive ability test can achieve near-equivalent validity, meaning the weighting between components matters more than the presence of any single component.

The authors also stress a methodological point that anyone designing an assessment should keep in mind: the average value from a meta-analysis is not a figure that applies to every context. Variation between studies is large, so local validity research on a company's own data retains distinct value.

A safe way to switch: run both rules in parallel for one season

The biggest risk in changing a scoring rule is not technical. It is that the recruiting team loses its comparison point against previous seasons and loses the ability to explain results to the panel.

The way to reduce that risk is to run both in parallel. In the first season, apply the old rule for the formal decision while also calculating results under the new weighted rule and recording the list of candidates where the two disagree. At the end of the season, compare that disagreement group against actual outcomes at the interview round and the final round.

After one season the company has enough internal evidence to switch fully, and more importantly it has a story in numbers to present. That usually determines whether a change is approved, more than the technical quality of the proposal itself.

Alongside this, it is worth starting to record the distribution of section scores by season. When comparing across seasons, the score distribution is a reliable indicator while the pass rate is not, because the pass rate moves with the very threshold the company sets.

Three things to do

Group the most recent season's candidates by the shape of their capability profile rather than by total score, to see which candidate type the current scoring rule is rejecting.
Replace the rule requiring the same pass mark on every section with a weighted average set by role, plus a low floor used only to exclude papers left blank.
Run the old and new rules in parallel for a full season, record the candidate group where the two disagree, and only then switch over completely.

Frequently asked questions

Should candidates be required to clear a pass mark on every test section?

VCO Group data shows this rule rejects almost the entire group that is strong on reasoning but weak on the verbal section, even though that group holds the highest logical reasoning scores in the whole pool and accounts for more than a fifth of everyone completing the test. The alternative is a weighted average set by role, with a low floor on each section.

Which section should be kept when an aptitude test has to be shortened?

The cultural fit section should be kept. In VCO Group data it is the only section that carries information the reasoning sections do not, because its correlation with the cognitive components is low. Cutting it removes a dimension of assessment that no other component can replace.

What are the risks of changing the scoring rule for a test?

The main risks are losing the comparison point against previous seasons and struggling to explain results to the recruiting panel. The way to reduce them is to run the old and new rules in parallel for a full season, using the old rule for the formal decision, then compare the disagreement group against actual outcomes in later rounds.

About VCO Group

VCO Group operates the assessment infrastructure behind Young Talent Programmes and Management Trainee schemes in Vietnam, covering application intake, aptitude testing, automated interviewing and Assessment Centres. VCO Group serves young talent and candidates with under three years of experience, working with large enterprises and multinationals in Vietnam. Its assessment and candidate management platform is called Testalents. Head office in Ho Chi Minh City.

If you would like to benchmark your own selection data against the market, or discuss the Young Talent Program Insight Report, contact Mr. Dung on 0334 889 068 or visit vcogroup.com.vn.