History & Validity

iWAM Background – The latest Development in Behavioural Technology:

Latest Advances in Cognitive Science

Precision Profiling® incorporates the iWAM (Inventory of Work and Attitudes and Motivations) instrument, based on what is now known from the field of cognitive science. The online questionnaire, available via an email link, takes less than 30 minutes to complete and helps organisations to identify what attitudes and motivations drive a person to behave the way they do. This allows one to predict with a certain degree of confidence, what motivates a person and how they prefer to communicate and act in their work environment. iWAM was developed in 2001 by Patrick Merlevede of JobEQ, a Belgian cognitive scientist and management consultant, who was building on the foundational work of Rodger Bailey, the creator of the LAB (Language and Behaviour) profile. It has very high reliability (0.9) and validity. It takes the utilisation of human potential in the work environment to a much deeper level than was previously thought possible. It has been used with a wide range of employees – from senior executives to front-line staff and spanning a wide expanse of roles. It is now available in 30 countries and 17 languages and measures people against the standard grouping for their particular country and its culture.

Predictive Power:

Using a ‘Model of Excellence,’ the iWAM has been demonstrated to predict from 45% to 65% of the actual work performance of managers, professionals and staff. It’s constructed to detect falsification and is therefore hard to fake.

Face Validity: (Do people agree with what is said about them?)

Based on feedback received, on average, people agree with 89.33% of the patterns. In December 2005, a random sampling of iWAM test takers from 14 different countries was conducted. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with the results of the 48 patterns they were tested on, and 89.33% agreed with their results. Half of the 10% that disagreed admitted it was because they didn’t like the ‘verdict’ even though the description of them was valid. This represents extremely high end-user validation on the accuracy of the reports. Now with the introduction of the LAB (Language and Behaviour) qualitative testing as part of the Precision Profiling® methodology, this face validity is reaching end-user acceptance rates of over 99%.

Construct Validity: (Is the testing instrument designed to measure what it claims to measure?)

  • Each of the 200 statements embedded in the iWAM instrument have been designed to measure a specific cognitive pattern of motivation (‘metaprogram’) – certified practitioners trained in Precision Profiling® are able to tell which statement is designed to measure which specific pattern.
  • The correlation between the ‘metaprograms’ from different categories is generally below 0.25, indicating that they are independent constructs.

Consistency: (When testing people several times with iWAM, how consistent are the results?)

  • 95% of the iWAM results can be confirmed during retest using the LAB profiling interview, another validated tool for measuring ‘metaprograms.’ This study was conducted in France in 2000 with 70 experts trained in tracking ‘metaprograms.’
  • In a conventional test/retest (Saint Louis University, Feb-April 2007), where 64 people completed the iWAM a second time after a period of one month, on average, the scores for most patterns remained within 5% of the original score, indicating that on the retest the iWAM instrument yielded virtually the same conclusion regarding the pattern.

Factor Analysis: (Independence of Measures)

By ranking preferences rather than choosing “either/or” statements, all parameters are measured independently of each other and can rate equally high or low in opposing patterns. i.e. This gives us the unique ability to capture and accurately represent human complexity and ambiguity rather than box it or label it.