>
>Contrast with the CCAT or Wanderlic (WPT) tests for learning, thinking and aptitude of potential employees. Those questions aren't designed to identify loss of cognitive function, but the sorts of skills you'd like in an employee. Some of those questions are also quite easy, but you need a good vocab and arithmetic agility, since some questions expire whether you've answered or not.
>
>Are they any good?

I (mis) spent 25 years of my career in management and did a lot of recruiting along the way.
Way back then, IBM had developed a programming aptitude test that was an uncanny predictor of failure in programmer candidates.
No one that I know has found a way to predict success in a recruit, but predicting almost certain failure is valuable and it helps the recruit more than it helps the employer.
During the 1970's Equal Opportunity people called that test discriminatory and it fell into disuse.
That was a loss, because I wound up hiring some people who, after a few months, demonstrated clearly that they were in the wrong profession.

The Wonderlic was good for jobs like bookkeepers where mental mechanics are needed, but was otherwise of little value.

If the recruiter is capable, the screening process is as much value to the recruit as it is to the employer. Boning up or otherwise preparing for an exam distorts the process and could wind up with someone taking a job they shouldn't take.