Verbal comprehension test: reading carefully and answering accurately
A verbal comprehension test checks how carefully someone reads short passages and how accurately they answer questions using only the information given. This guide explains what the test measures, works through a generic example, explains how it differs from verbal reasoning, and offers advice for candidates and employers.
What a verbal comprehension test measures
Instructions, policies, emails and customer messages all have to be read and acted on correctly. A misread instruction can mean a missed deadline, a wrong order or an unhappy customer. Verbal comprehension is the everyday reading skill behind getting these things right.
The Viewpoint Verbal Comprehension Test has 32 questions in 16 minutes, based on 8 short passages. Candidates choose the best answer to each question using only the information given. The test is normed, so the Assessor Report shows a percentile and score band alongside speed and accuracy, and every candidate can receive a supportive Candidate Report.
A worked example
The following is a generic illustration written for this article, not an item from the Viewpoint test.
"Returns are accepted within 28 days of purchase with a receipt. Items bought in a sale can be exchanged but not refunded. Gift cards cannot be returned. Customers without a receipt may be offered store credit at the manager's discretion."
Question: A customer brings back a full-price jumper bought 10 days ago, with a receipt. What can they have? A refund, because it is within 28 days with a receipt and was not a sale item.
Question: A customer has no receipt. What does the passage say? They may be offered store credit, but only if the manager decides to. The passage does not say they are entitled to it.
The second question shows the skill being measured: reading exactly what the text says, including words like "may" and "discretion", rather than what seems reasonable.
Verbal comprehension or verbal reasoning?
The Verbal Reasoning Test uses business passages with True, False or Cannot tell statements and suits graduate, managerial and professional roles. Verbal comprehension uses shorter, everyday passages with best-answer questions and suits customer service, administrative, operational and apprentice roles. Choosing the test that matches the reading demands of the job is fairer to candidates and more useful to employers.
What research says
Verbal ability tests have strong research support in selection. A UK meta-analysis by Bertua, Anderson and Salgado found that verbal tests predicted both job performance and training success [1], and Schmidt and Hunter's wider review placed general mental ability among the strongest single predictors of performance [2].
Using a verbal comprehension test well
For employers, use results in bands from Very Low to Very High alongside an interview, and look at speed and accuracy. For candidates, read the question first so you know what to look for, then find the sentence that answers it. Watch for qualifying words such as "only", "may", "usually" and "not".
See the Verbal Comprehension Test page, our guide to verbal reasoning, or all our ability tests.
Frequently asked questions
How long does the Viewpoint Verbal Comprehension Test take?
It has 32 questions across 8 passages, with a time limit of 16 minutes.
Can I use my own knowledge?
No. Answer using only the information in the passage.
Is it normed?
Yes. The Assessor Report shows a percentile and score band, plus speed and accuracy.
Which roles is it suited to?
Roles that involve reading and acting on everyday written information, such as customer service, administration and operations.
References
- Bertua, C., Anderson, N. & Salgado, J. F. (2005). The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: a UK meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(3), 387–409.
- Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274.
