SeeMyPersonality content is authored with a psychology-led, evidence-based framework. This page explains authorship, methodology, and the review standards used across tests, reports, and guidance pages.
Content on SeeMyPersonality is directed by Michael Hodge, including test design guidance, interpretation content, and quality standards for new assessments.
The approach combines formal psychology training at the University of Wollongong with hands-on expertise in questionnaire design, item writing, and practical psychometric review.
Michael Hodge
Founder, SeeMyPersonality
Bachelor of Science (Psychology), University of Wollongong, with coursework in psychometrics and research methods.
Extensive experience in questionnaire and survey design across educational and applied settings.
Practice areas include item quality, scoring design, norm referencing, scale construction, interpretation frameworks, and drop-off diagnostics.
| Area | Scope | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Assessment Design & Review | All personality tests, scoring logic, instrument selection | Author & Reviewer |
| Content & Guides | MBTI guides, Big Five type profiles, educational articles | Author |
| Hiring & Workplace | Role-specific hiring guides, interview frameworks | Author & Reviewer |
These principles are applied to personality tests, scoring interpretation, and educational assessment content.
Every questionnaire starts with a clear construct and intended decision before items are drafted.
Items are reviewed for reading load, bias risk, mobile usability, and practical completion time.
Pilots, item behavior, and drop-off diagnostics inform revisions before broad release.
Each major questionnaire or guidance resource is developed and refined through a repeatable quality process.
Set audience, target construct, and what the result should help users understand or decide.
Map constructs to item types, scoring logic, and interpretation guidance for complete coverage.
Write single-focus items, review wording quality, and tune scale anchors for clarity.
Check branching, scoring math, edge cases, completion flow, and result narrative consistency.
Review for fairness, readability, and whether claims match what the instrument can support.
Assess completion patterns and psychometric quality signals, then publish with tracked updates.
Authorship and review standards are used across both consumer and hiring-facing assessment content.
Personality content is unusually easy to get wrong. The internet is full of trait descriptions, type lists, and quizzes that sound plausible but rest on weak evidence, outdated norms, or a writer's hunch. We treat authorship as a quality signal, not a marketing line. Every assessment, type profile, and explainer on this site is written or reviewed by someone with formal training in psychometrics and personality science, and every page tells you who that was.
That matters for two practical reasons. First, the underlying research is genuinely complex: a study finding a 0.30 correlation between Conscientiousness and job performance is meaningful at the population level and almost meaningless for any single hire. Good content respects that distinction. Second, personality results carry weight in how people see themselves. Telling someone they are "low in Agreeableness" without context can land as a verdict rather than a measurement. We write profiles that describe the trait honestly, then translate it into something useful: how to lean on it, where it might trip you up, what to try next.
Calling content "research-backed" is cheap. We take it to mean three concrete things. We cite primary sources where possible, not just secondary summaries. We distinguish between strong findings (Big Five Conscientiousness predicting academic and work outcomes across many studies) and weaker ones (specific MBTI types predicting career success). And we update pages when the evidence does. The "last reviewed" date on each test page is not decorative.
Online personality assessments are not clinical instruments. A Big Five score from this site is useful for self-reflection, conversation with a partner or coach, and team awareness exercises. It is not a substitute for a clinician's assessment, a diagnostic tool, or a sole basis for hiring or admissions decisions. We say this on the relevant pages because conflating those uses is one of the most common ways personality testing gets misused. If you want to discuss the limits of a specific instrument or its appropriate use, the contact form reaches the team directly.
If you want details on a specific test methodology, item rationale, or review cycle, contact us and we will help.