EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGY 
166 
used should be of a uniform hardness—a number two 
hardness is probably best—and should always be kept 
sharpened, though not so sharp as to make them likely to 
break off. It is also very important that they be without 
erasers. This seems like a strange condition, but any one 
who has given tests knows how likely a subject is to make a 
mistake and then to use up time trying to erase it. In 
order to obtain more uniform results, and in order to 
avoid including in the test a trial of the subject’s ability to 
make erasures, it is better to have pencils without erasers, 
and to instruct the subject to cross out his mistakes. 
Much can be surmised about the education and training 
of an applicant by observing the manner in which he uses a 
pencil. Frequently, there are applicants for certain kinds 
of work who can hardly read or write, and who handle a 
pencil very clumsily. These applicants may fall down 
decidedly in certain tests. Nevertheless, if given a trial 
at actual work, they may succeed very well. For this 
reason, tests which require a certain amount of education, 
and skill in the use of a pencil, should never be held against 
an applicant unless he is being tested for that very thing. 
For example, in these experiments, there were inspectors 
who did very poor work in the number-checking test, the 
cancellation test, and the card-sorting test. Still, they 
were excellent inspectors. They were girls who had come 
to this country very recently and had not had time to 
learn how to read English, or how to use a pencil, or how to 
scan a printed page. Where the tests themselves are 
inadequate, that fact should be recognized, and due allow 
ance made. It has been our practice always to recommend 
such applicants for a trial, using the best possible empirical 
judgment to supplement the limitations of the tests. 
As the use of tests becomes more and more prevalent, it