Thank you Jonri for an excellent explanation. Also I mispelled TMA in the original post as MTA (did not check for autocorrect- sorry!)
Jonri – thank you for the explanation. It certainly makes sense for a large employer to use aptitude testing as a way of determining best placement for employees – it benefits both employer and employee.
But I agree with others that it’s not particularly helpful for teenagers, particularly if the result is going to be – as it is in OP’s case – that the kid does pretty good in just about everything. Somehow I think that in those cases the array of talents would be apparent to all before the test – so it’s money being spent to confirm what is already known. I do see it as being valuable in cases where there are significant learning differences or problems – for example, a kid who is on the autistic spectrum – and the goal is to help determine the niche where the young person can succeed. In those cases it might also be important to be able to document those narrow talents.
I don’t fault OP for paying $$ unnecessarily for something the daughter wanted - I certainly have done the same, though with eyes wide open knowing that the $$ was not necessarily spent for the purpose that it was advertised.
I just think it’s a problem if the results end being used in a negative way – for example, a kid who wants a career in music giving up because the test results show merely a “high average” aptitude (as Jonri’s daughter experienced), or a kid who interprets weak results as confirmation of an “I can’t” mentality-- for example, the kid who shies away from attending a particular college or embarking on a particular course of study because of the belief, “I can’t do math” or “I will never be any good at writing.”
Well, calmom, do you know anyone who has actually taken the test as a teenager? If you had, then maybe you’d be less dismissive.
My D took the test at her own request. Actually, she didn’t know about the organization. She asked me if there was a test that told you what you were good at and what sorts of careers might be good for people who were good at those things.That’s really what Johnson O’Connor is aimed at. I called the Parents’ League in New York and it recommended Johnson O’Connor.
The test doesn’t focus on what you’re bad at but what you are good at. Moreover, many aptitudes aren’t really “bad” or “good.” I know I didn’t explain that well, but usually “weakness” also aligns with certain careers.
The tests don’t really say “You should do this” or “You aren’t good enough to do this.” it’s more a matter of saying you score way above average in X, Y, and Z aptitudes but below average in N aptitude. A number of successful people in the following fields:, and _ share this aptitude pattern.
Writing is a skill and the test isn’t about skills, so it would never tell you something like “I shall never be any good at writing.” And it won’t say “you can’t do math” either. What it might tell you is that your spatial perception is below average and that 97% of architects tested score in the top 10% on the spatial perception test. Obviously, there are some successful architects who don’t. But maybe it’s not all that bad to know it might be a struggle for you. (These numbers are made up; I don’t know the real ones.) And if you understand that your spatial perception is weak, you might do better in geometry if you build some 3-dimensional models rather than relying on the 2 dimensional renderings of 3 dimensional figures in your textbook.
I’m not trying to talk anyone into taking the Johnson O’Connor tests. I’m just saying that it gave me some insights into my child which I don’t think I would have had otherwise and it suggesting investigating career options we had no knowledge of. That said, my D didn’t end up doing any of them!
Still, I think the test helped by giving her and her parents some insights into her strengths and weaknesses that I at least would not have had without it. You CAN improve your skills by practicing and JO’C stresses that.
I most definitely would NOT recommend the test for an autistic child.
I do agree with Jonri that the Johnson O’Connor testing is very valuable, especially for a teenager. For example, if your child scores low in dexterity tasks and has a low spatial perception maybe a career in neurosurgery or dentistry is not for her; it would still be possible, but she would have a much harder time than others.
I had a client take the O’Connor testing, which gave a bunch of pseudo-cognitive descriptors and used the Self Directed Search, an interest Inventory based on the Holland scales. The write-up was interesting, but I did not find it terribly useful, though the client did like it. I am currently testing out a new product that combines interest inventory/Holland scales with a number of cognitive tasks to match aptitudes in a number of areas with careers, how ones aptitudes fit those careers and what majors may be beneficial to lead to those careers. So far I am intrigued.