Staying on top of the latest HR terms and jargon can be a challenge in your field of expertise. We understand as an HR professional you’re always looking to expand your skills and knowledge, which is why we’ve compiled an extensive HR glossary.
The glossary is your go-to resource to help sharpen your acumen in this field. From commonly used HR words to more obscure Human Resources terms, the HR glossary covers it all. Whether you’re a seasoned pro or just starting out, our library is a handy tool to have in your arsenal.
Home » HR Glossary » Aptitude Test
Aptitude testing has become a critical gateway to career opportunities at some of the world’s most prestigious organizations. In fact, over 1 million military applicants and high school students take the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) each year. Similarly, major corporations like Google employ specialized aptitude tests such as the General Cognitive Ability test to evaluate candidates’ problem-solving abilities.
What is aptitude testing exactly? Essentially, it’s an assessment designed to evaluate a person’s natural ability to excel in specific tasks or areas of interest. These tests have gained significant popularity in recruitment because they help employers reduce bias and identify candidates who can learn quickly and adapt to new situations. Throughout this article, we’ll explore the hidden aspects of aptitude tests that most HR professionals won’t openly discuss, from their limitations to how you can prepare effectively.
Understanding aptitude tests requires digging beyond surface-level definitions. These specialized assessments have become integral to modern human resource practices, yet many candidates face them without fully grasping their purpose or structure.
An aptitude test is a specialized assessment designed to evaluate a person’s inherent capability or capacity to perform well in a particular field, discipline, or type of work. Unlike knowledge-based assessments, aptitude testing measures innate abilities rather than acquired knowledge. This distinction is crucial in recruitment contexts where employers seek to identify candidates with natural potential.
HR departments typically deploy aptitude tests as standardized tools for candidate assessment, checking problem-solving abilities, logical reasoning, and numerical skills. These assessments provide valuable insights into a candidate’s potential regardless of their academic background or work experience.
Additionally, they help recruiters understand how capable a person is in a specific field by evaluating how well an individual can learn, think, solve problems, and adapt to new environments.
The fundamental premise behind aptitude testing is that individuals possess inherent strengths and weaknesses and a natural inclination toward success or failure in certain areas. Consequently, these assessments help identify candidates with high potential who might otherwise be overlooked in traditional interview processes.
What makes aptitude tests particularly valuable in HR practice is their objective nature. They provide a standardized way to assess candidates, effectively eliminating biases that might occur in traditional interviews and ensuring a level playing field for all applicants. Furthermore, aptitude tests offer recruiters reliable information about candidates’ cognitive skills, which aids them in making more informed hiring decisions.
Though frequently confused, aptitude tests and IQ tests serve distinctly different purposes in assessment. The key distinction lies in their fundamental focus: IQ tests attempt to measure an individual’s intellect as a whole, while aptitude tests assess potential in specific fields or tasks.
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests measure how inherently intelligent a person is, whereas aptitude tests evaluate how well that person can apply their intelligence to different scenarios. This practical application focus makes aptitude tests particularly valuable in recruitment contexts.
Several other important differences exist between these assessment types:
Through their focused design, aptitude tests offer insights into how quickly candidates can learn new skills and adapt to work environments—critical factors in determining long-term employee success that traditional interviews often fail to reveal.
“Character is as important as passion in recruitment.” — Peter Schultz, CEO, The Scripps Research Institute
In today’s data-driven recruitment landscape, employers increasingly rely on aptitude testing to make informed hiring decisions. This shift toward objective assessment tools stems from their proven effectiveness in identifying top talent while addressing common challenges in traditional hiring methods.
Organizations face constant pressure to create fair, inclusive hiring processes. Aptitude tests serve as powerful tools in mitigating bias throughout recruitment, fostering a more equitable environment for all candidates.
The primary advantage lies in their objectivity. Instead of relying on subjective judgments prone to personal biases, candidates are assessed based on standardized aptitude test questions that measure actual skills and abilities. This approach ensures all applicants, regardless of demographic background, are evaluated against identical criteria.
Moreover, consistency represents another fundamental benefit. Every candidate encounters the exact same set of questions, leading to a uniform assessment experience. This standardization significantly reduces the likelihood of biased evaluations that often occur in traditional interviews, where interviewers may unintentionally introduce prejudices based on their interpretations of responses.
The impact of this approach is substantial. According to research by the National Bureau of Economic Research, implementing standardized testing in recruitment processes reduced racial bias in hiring by approximately 20%. Additionally, companies employing these assessments have seen a 40% increase in hiring accuracy.
One striking example comes from Unilever, which implemented digital recruitment combining gamified assessments with traditional aptitude tests. The results were remarkable – a 16% increase in diversity among new hires and a 50% decrease in time-to-hire.
Perhaps the most compelling reason for aptitude test adoption is their predictive power. Research consistently demonstrates that cognitive aptitude is one of the most accurate predictors of job success – 1.6 times more predictive than unstructured job interviews and four times more predictive than past job experience.
These assessments measure crucial capabilities including:
The data supporting their effectiveness is substantial. Candidates who scored well on cognitive aptitude tests were seven times more likely to be high performers and 7.6 times more likely to receive multiple promotions. This correlation between test scores and actual job performance makes aptitude testing an invaluable tool for identifying candidates with the highest potential for success.
Furthermore, aptitude tests help employers understand how quickly prospective employees can grasp new concepts and adapt to changing work environments. This insight proves particularly valuable when hiring for roles requiring extensive training or those in rapidly evolving industries.
A practical example comes from biotechnology company Roche, which introduced specialized cognitive aptitude tests to assess problem-solving skills relevant to complex scientific roles. This approach resulted in a 30% improvement in first-year employee retention rates.
Beyond external hiring, aptitude tests play a vital role in internal talent development. These assessments help organizations identify high-potential employees for advancement opportunities and create effective succession plans.
When planning for leadership transitions, cognitive tests help measure the aptitude required by future leaders to achieve excellence aligned with business goals. By evaluating an employee’s potential to learn and adapt to new responsibilities, companies can make data-driven decisions about whom to promote.
Aptitude testing in succession planning offers several advantages:
This approach helps organizations prepare for future challenges by ensuring they have qualified internal candidates ready to step into critical roles when needed. Ultimately, using aptitude tests for internal promotions and succession planning creates a more sustainable talent pipeline while providing valuable career development opportunities for employees.
Employers deploy a diverse range of aptitude tests, each designed to evaluate specific capabilities relevant to different job functions. These specialized assessments help identify candidates with natural talents aligned to particular role requirements.
Numerical reasoning tests assess a candidate’s ability to interpret and analyze numerical data presented in charts, tables, or text formats. Primarily used for finance and data-focused positions, these assessments evaluate skills crucial for roles requiring quantitative analysis.
Almost 60% of companiesincorporate verbal ability tests in their recruitment process, reflecting the importance placed on numerical aptitude. These tests typically require candidates to demonstrate proficiency with percentages, ratios, and basic arithmetic operations. No advanced mathematical knowledge is necessary – questions rarely exceed GCSE-level mathematics.
Finance departments, data analytics teams, and information technology roles frequently utilize these assessments, as do positions in business consulting, sales, marketing, and management. The tests reveal candidates’ capacity to monitor and interpret graphs, make logical conclusions from numerical data, and solve problems requiring quantitative analysis.
Verbal reasoning tests evaluate how effectively candidates understand, analyze, and interpret written information. These assessments measure reading comprehension, critical thinking, and the ability to draw logical conclusions from textual content.
Jobs requiring strong communication skills—notably marketing, legal, customer service, and management positions—rely on these tests to identify candidates who can process complex written material and communicate effectively. The assessments examine vocabulary usage, grammatical understanding, and logical reasoning through language.
Beyond basic comprehension, verbal reasoning tests evaluate a candidate’s capacity to think critically about written content and formulate persuasive arguments—skills vital for roles involving significant client interaction or document preparation.
Diagrammatic reasoning tests (sometimes called abstract reasoning tests) measure a candidate’s ability to identify patterns, follow logical sequences, and solve problems using visual information rather than words or numbers.
Engineering firms, IT departments, and design companies frequently employ these assessments when recruiting for positions demanding strong analytical thinking. The tests evaluate a candidate’s logical abilities, critical thinking skills, and problem-solving capabilities without relying on specialized knowledge.
Notably, diagrammatic reasoning tests are considered among the fairest assessment methods across different cultures and languages since they use symbols and visuals instead of words. They’re particularly valuable for roles involving complex systems, engineering challenges, or innovation.
Situational judgment tests (SJTs) present realistic workplace scenarios followed by multiple response options. Candidates must select the most appropriate action or evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches.
These assessments examine crucial soft skills including communication, teamwork, negotiation, and conflict resolution. For customer-facing positions, SJTs evaluate competencies like developing rapport, reading customer needs, social perceptiveness, and emotional self-control.
Customer service roles particularly benefit from these tests, which measure a candidate’s ability to handle challenging requests, demonstrate flexibility, and maintain professional composure during difficult interactions.
Mechanical reasoning tests assess understanding of basic mechanical and physical concepts such as gears, levers, pulleys, and electrical circuits. These tests present candidates with images depicting mechanical problems or scenarios, requiring application of mechanical principles to solve practical problems.
Technical positions—including aircraft technicians, auto mechanics, machine operators, engineers, and roles in emergency services or armed forces—commonly utilize these assessments. They evaluate a candidate’s mechanical knowledge rather than underlying aptitude, meaning applicants should possess thorough understanding of key topics and basic principles.
Questions typically reflect industry-specific scenarios, focusing on practical applications relevant to the position. Tests might include gravity and velocity concepts, hydraulics problems, or shape and volume calculations.
Beyond understanding the types of aptitude tests, grasping how these assessments are scored reveals crucial insights that most candidates never discover. The scoring mechanisms behind aptitude testing often determine who advances in the hiring process, yet these systems remain largely opaque to test-takers.
When you complete an aptitude test, your performance generates two distinct metrics. The raw score simply represents the total number of questions answered correctly. For instance, if you answer 8 out of 10 questions correctly, your raw score would be 80%. This straightforward calculation offers a basic performance snapshot but lacks contextual depth.
Standardized scores, on the other hand, transform raw figures into meaningful comparative metrics. These scores place your performance within a broader context by comparing your results against those of other candidates. This contextual approach provides employers with a more nuanced understanding of your abilities relative to the applicant pool.
Consider this reality: a raw score of 8/10 (80%) might initially seem impressive. Yet, if most candidates score 9/10 or higher, that same 80% could position you below average in the overall candidate pool. This distinction explains why employers primarily rely on standardized scores rather than raw figures when making hiring decisions.
One practical example comes from the Criteria Cognitive Aptitude Test (CCAT), which provides both measurements. The test yields a raw score (out of 50 questions) alongside a percentile ranking that contextualizes that performance against other test-takers. The mean score for this assessment is 24.2, with a median of 24 and a standard deviation of 8.58.
Percentile rankings serve as the predominant method for interpreting aptitude test results. These rankings indicate the percentage of scores in a distribution that fall below a particular score. If your performance falls in the 75th percentile, this means you outperformed 75% of your peers.
The calculation involves several steps:
Percentile rankings provide critical context that raw scores alone cannot deliver. For instance, a seemingly modest raw score might place you in a surprisingly high percentile if the test proves particularly challenging for most candidates. Equally, a high raw score might yield a lower-than-expected percentile if the test is generally easy or if competing candidates demonstrate exceptional ability.
HR professionals seldom reveal several critical limitations in aptitude test scoring. First, raw scores without context frequently lead to misinterpretations. A study by the National Center for Education Statistics found that 57% of educators misinterpret test scores, incorrectly assuming higher raw scores always indicate superior performance.
Second, many recruiters fail to acknowledge that aptitude tests don’t account for test difficulty or population variability. Raw scores overlook these crucial factors, potentially skewing evaluation outcomes. This limitation explains why percentile rankings have become the industry standard for interpretation.
Third, organizations that rely exclusively on raw output data experienced a 35% increase in turnover rates among high-performing employees. This statistic reveals a fundamental weakness: tests often fail to account for contextual factors like market conditions or external circumstances that might affect performance.
Finally, HR rarely discloses that percentile rankings can be misleading with small sample sizes. When evaluating candidates within small groups, being in the 80th percentile might not carry the same significance as it would in a larger applicant pool. This contextual limitation means test results should always be interpreted with consideration for the specific circumstances of each hiring scenario.
Behind every aptitude test lies an unseen reality that few HR professionals openly discuss: cognitive bias is inherently woven into the design of these assessments. These biases profoundly influence who succeeds and who struggles, often irrespective of actual ability or potential.
Beneath the veneer of objectivity, cultural unconscious bias significantly impacts test outcomes. Cultural bias occurs when test scores vary based on a test-taker’s background regardless of their knowledge of the subject matter. This effect is especially pronounced in verbal reasoning assessments, where different interpretations of the same text lead some groups to score lower than others.
The impact becomes evident in standardized entrance exams, where stark differences exist between racial groups. For instance, Hispanic students score more than 3 points lower on the ACT than white students, even when controlling for socioeconomic status. More alarmingly, research reveals the ACT has a 28% predictive value for white students but merely a 6.8% predictive value for Black students.
Verbal reasoning tests frequently contain language constructs and vocabulary that inherently favor individuals from the language’s native culture. Specifically:
Despite claims by test providers that verbal reasoning tests remain “among the most fair assessment methods,” ethnic minority candidates consistently score 10-20 points lower than their white counterparts, even when accounting for education and experience.
Economic background dramatically influences aptitude test outcomes. Studies demonstrate that students from low-income backgrounds face multiple barriers—including limited access to tutoring, study materials, or even quiet study spaces. Indeed, data from the University of California revealed low-income students scored, on average, 250 points lower on the SAT compared to affluent peers.
The impact of socioeconomic status (SES) begins early and compounds over time. Children from low SES families scored 6 IQ points lower at age 2 than those from high SES backgrounds. By age 16, this gap nearly tripled, with low SES boys scoring 15 points lower and girls 17 points lower than their high SES counterparts.
Furthermore, statistics show that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds experience higher stress levels during test-taking, directly affecting performance. Unfortunately, these disparities contribute to a cycle where 79% of questions in standardized assessments derive from contexts unfamiliar to marginalized students.
Many candidates with substantial potential underperform on aptitude tests due to factors unrelated to ability. Research suggests that achievement on tests increases when test-takers believe they have the power to succeed. Conversely, self-critical beliefs significantly decrease performance, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Additionally, teaching and testing styles often disadvantage certain groups. Many instructors rely on two-way communication, expecting students to ask questions freely. Yet this approach proves incompatible with cultures where asking questions is viewed as weakness, limiting understanding of test material.
Perhaps most critical is the limited predictive validity of these assessments. Studies by the National Bureau of Economic Research found cognitive ability tests predict only about 25% of job performance variance. Furthermore, the American Psychological Association reports that traditional aptitude tests account for merely 10-15% of actual job performance.
These statistics illuminate why many candidates with tremendous potential never advance through aptitude test gateways – not because they lack ability, but because the tests themselves fail to accurately measure their capabilities.
The science behind aptitude testing contains crucial flaws that rarely appear in corporate recruitment literature. Despite widespread adoption, these assessment tools possess significant limitations that affect their ability to truly predict workplace success.
Aptitude tests capture only a snapshot of a candidate’s abilities under controlled conditions. Multiple studies reveal that cognitive aptitude predicts merely 25-30% of actual job performance variance. This limited correlation means most performance factors remain unaccounted for in test results.
Additionally, the predictive power diminishes over time. A study tracking employee over five years found that initial aptitude scores maintained strong correlation with performance during the first year but showed almost no relationship by year five. This temporal decline suggests aptitude tests primarily indicate short-term potential rather than long-term success.
Most assessment tools also struggle with measuring crucial workplace attributes including:
Many organizations have fallen into the trap of allowing aptitude scores to overshadow other qualifications. A Society for Human Resource Management survey revealed that 41% of companies acknowledge giving test results greater weight than interview performance when making final hiring decisions.
This overemphasis can systematically eliminate candidates who possess exceptional qualities not captured by standardized assessments. For example, creativity-driven roles often require divergent thinking patterns that many traditional aptitude tests inadvertently penalize rather than reward.
Business history abounds with examples contradicting aptitude testing assumptions. Steve Jobs famously scored below average on standardized tests yet revolutionized multiple industries. Likewise, Walt Disney was rejected from numerous positions due to “lack of creative potential” according to assessment metrics of his era.
More systematically, a longitudinal study of technology firms found that 38% of their highest-performing employees had scored in the bottom half of pre-employment aptitude assessments. Another analysis of sales professionals discovered that personality traits predicted performance success twice as effectively as cognitive aptitude scores.
The key insight: aptitude tests work best as one tool within a comprehensive evaluation system rather than as the definitive measure of candidate potential. Their predictive limitations mean they should complement, never replace, thorough interviews, work samples, and performance assessments.
“Success is the sum of small efforts, repeated day in and day out.” — Robert Collier, Author, self-help and motivational writer
Success in aptitude testing requires more than natural ability—it demands strategic preparation. Following these proven approaches will maximize your performance and help you stand out among candidates.
Consistent practice forms the foundation of effective test preparation. Setting aside dedicated time each day to solve aptitude questions builds the mental stamina needed for actual assessments. Studies show that regular practice not only improves your ability to answer questions correctly but also enhances your speed under time constraints.
Create an exam-like environment when practicing. This approach trains your brain to adjust to time limitations and manage the associated stress. Try to solve as many problems as possible within the allotted timeframe, then calculate your accuracy percentage based on correct answers. Aim for at least 70-80% accuracy; lower scores indicate areas needing additional focus.
Various online platforms offer specialized preparation materials:
Prior to any preparation, familiarize yourself with the specific assessment format. Research what skills the test measures and understand the general structure of questions. Contact previous test-takers or reach out to recruiters for insights about the assessment format, time constraints, and other crucial details.
Develop effective time management strategies throughout your practice sessions. When solving sample questions, always establish a time limit for each section. Many candidates fail aptitude tests not because they lack knowledge but because they struggle with the strict time constraints.
Find out what tools are permitted during the test. Some numerical reasoning assessments allow calculator use—ensure you’re comfortable using yours efficiently if this applies to your situation.
Analyzing your performance after each practice session reveals patterns in your mistakes. Many preparation platforms offer personalized reports highlighting strengths and weaknesses. This information allows you to develop a targeted improvement plan focusing on problematic areas.
After identifying weak points, dedicate additional practice time to those specific question types. For instance, if data interpretation questions consistently challenge you, prioritize these in your preparation routine.
Throughout your preparation journey, maintain balance between challenge and confidence-building. Track your progress through performance graphs to visualize improvement over time. This measurement helps sustain motivation while ensuring all skill areas develop adequately before your actual assessment.
As digital recruitment expands, the reliability of online aptitude testing has come under scrutiny. Employers and candidates alike must understand the key factors affecting test credibility in virtual environments.
Free online aptitude tests provide valuable practice opportunities, mimicking the format of professional assessments. Nevertheless, they typically lack the comprehensive feedback and detailed analysis offered by paid alternatives. Paid platforms deliver more accurate results through professional development and validation, often including features like adaptive testing where question difficulty adjusts based on performance. Yet cost remains a significant drawback, placing quality assessment tools beyond reach for some candidates.
Remote proctoring technologies have emerged as essential safeguards for online aptitude testing. Modern systems employ three primary approaches: live proctoring with real-time human monitoring, recorded proctoring with post-test review, and automated proctoring using AI to detect suspicious behaviors. Advanced platforms integrate facial recognition, browser freezing, and 360° environment checks to maintain test integrity. Hence, candidates cannot easily access unauthorized resources during assessments.
Organizations employ multiple verification methods simultaneously. ID authentication through photo verification or biometrics confirms candidate identity. IP address tracking detects location inconsistencies or VPN usage. Meanwhile, time limits reduce opportunities for researching answers. These combined measures create a secure assessment environment even in remote settings.
Aptitude testing remains a double-edged sword in modern recruitment practices. Throughout this article, we have explored the complex reality behind these assessments – from their promising benefits to their concerning limitations.
Employers undoubtedly benefit from aptitude tests through standardized evaluation methods that help reduce bias and predict job performance. Nevertheless, these tests carry significant limitations that candidates should understand when facing them in their career journeys.
The predictive accuracy of aptitude tests deserves particular scrutiny. Tests capturing merely 25-30% of performance variance highlight a fundamental truth: aptitude assessments represent just one piece of the talent evaluation puzzle. Many exceptional candidates with tremendous potential might underperform due to factors unrelated to their actual abilities.
Cultural bias, socioeconomic factors, and test design flaws further complicate the reliability of these assessments. Candidates from diverse backgrounds often face systemic disadvantages despite possessing equal or superior capabilities.
Daily practice with mock tests, thorough understanding of test formats, and targeted improvement of weak areas constitute your best strategy when preparing for these assessments. Familiarity with test structures significantly improves performance regardless of natural aptitude.
The evolution of online testing platforms has addressed some traditional concerns while introducing new challenges. Remote proctoring technologies and verification methods now help maintain test integrity, though questions about accessibility and fairness persist.
Overall, aptitude tests serve as valuable tools when used appropriately – complementing rather than replacing comprehensive evaluation systems. Their greatest value emerges when organizations acknowledge their limitations and integrate them as one component of a multifaceted assessment approach.
Armed with this knowledge, you can approach aptitude testing with greater confidence, understanding both its significance in recruitment and its inherent limitations. Success lies not just in performing well on these tests but in showcasing your complete professional value beyond what any standardized assessment can measure.
Understanding the hidden science behind aptitude testing reveals critical insights that can transform your approach to these career-defining assessments.
• Aptitude tests predict only 25-30% of job performance, meaning your true potential extends far beyond test scores and other factors matter significantly more.
• Cultural and socioeconomic biases are built into test design, with ethnic minorities scoring 10-20 points lower regardless of actual ability or experience.
• Daily practice with mock tests under timed conditions is the most effective preparation strategy, improving both accuracy and speed under pressure.
• Percentile rankings matter more than raw scores – your performance relative to other candidates determines advancement, not just correct answers.
• Online testing platforms use advanced security measures including facial recognition, browser monitoring, and IP tracking to maintain test integrity.
The reality is that aptitude tests serve as gatekeepers rather than definitive measures of your capabilities. While they remain valuable screening tools for employers, their limitations mean exceptional candidates often get filtered out due to factors unrelated to job performance potential. Success requires understanding both the science behind these assessments and the strategic preparation needed to navigate their inherent biases and constraints.
To succeed on an aptitude test, practice daily with mock tests under timed conditions, familiarize yourself with the test format and time limits, and focus on improving your weak areas based on feedback. Consistent practice builds mental stamina and improves both accuracy and speed.
Aptitude tests have limited predictive accuracy, typically accounting for only 25-30% of job performance variance. While they provide some insight into a candidate’s potential, they don’t capture many crucial workplace attributes like emotional intelligence, creativity, and adaptability.
Yes, aptitude tests often contain cultural and language biases, particularly in verbal reasoning sections. Socioeconomic factors also significantly impact test performance. These biases can lead to lower scores for ethnic minorities and candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds, regardless of their actual abilities.
Employers primarily rely on percentile rankings rather than raw scores to interpret test results. Your performance is compared to other candidates, with your percentile rank indicating the percentage of test-takers you outperformed. This contextual approach provides a more nuanced understanding of your abilities relative to the applicant pool.
Online aptitude tests employ various security measures to maintain integrity. These include remote proctoring technologies (live, recorded, or automated), facial recognition, browser freezing, IP address tracking, and strict time limits. These combined measures create a secure assessment environment even in remote settings.
Curious about more HR buzzwords like interview-to-hire ratio, behavioral interview, casual leave, leave encashment, relieving letter, resignation letter or more? Dive into our HR Glossary and get clear definitions of the terms that drive modern HR.
Explore Taggd for RPO solutions.
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". |
| viewed_cookie_policy | 11 months | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |