Turn the JD you already have into evidence a panel can act on: a candidate fit profile, interview questions with scoring anchors, and a 30/60/90 onboarding brief. All from one 10-minute Big Five assessment.
No credit card First campaign free Online since 2003
You'll see the role profile straight away: which traits the job leans on and why. No account for that part.
Free, and we don't ask for an email to show you this.
Measuring personality online since 2003
Role-specific Big Five scoring for the hires a resume can't explain. Transparent weights, reviewable logic, and a report your panel will actually read.
Four artefacts from one scoring core, each built for a different moment in the hire.
A one-page candidate profile. Big Five results scored against the role you defined, with strengths to lean on and watchouts to probe.
Behavioural questions with 1–5 scoring anchors, tailored to each candidate. Your panel walks in aligned.
A 30/60/90-day manager guide built from the same data, so support starts on day one instead of at the first stumble.
A transparent 0–100 score with visible role weights. No hidden rejection rules and no black box.
None of this labels a candidate. It helps your panel notice the right things, ask fairer questions, and show the reasoning behind a decision.
Not a mockup. This is the live report your panel opens, from the same scoring core as the dashboard. Nine tabs, benchmarked and cited. Click through it below.
Sample data is illustrative: a typical Sales Development Rep profile. Every respondent keeps a personal copy of their own report. You can also explore the full employee personality assessment sample and pick the outcome you want to get right.
Yes, if you use it carefully. Personality data is not a decision. It's a way of asking better questions. The platform turns a job description into a profile of what the role rewards. Your panel gets structured prompts for the traits that matter. The EEOC has drawn the same line for forty years: selection procedures should be job-related, documented, and used consistently.
A structured read on how a candidate tends to work: how they plan, collaborate, and handle pressure. The goal is not a perfect personality. Define what the role needs, measure every candidate the same way, and let the results sharpen the interview.
Any scored method used before a hiring decision to measure something that predicts the job: ability, knowledge, personality, judgement, or a skill. Consistency is what separates an assessment from a hunch. Same questions, same scoring, every candidate. Screening is the wider net that also covers background and reference checks. Testing is the scored, predictive part, and it's what this page covers.
In most teams the first filter is a feeling. A familiar school, a confident introduction, a story that sounds right. Recruiters spend about 7.4 seconds per resume, and most interviews, per CareerBuilder, are largely settled in the first five minutes.
The fix is not to remove judgement. It's to give judgement structure. Schmidt and Hunter and Sackett and colleagues both show structured methods beat loose impressions. Role weights first. Candidate responses second. Interview evidence third.
Use the JD you already have. We read the responsibilities, the success signals, the collaboration load, and the pressure points.
You see the trait weights before any candidate sees a question. Edit them freely. The model defers to your role expertise.
Branded link, mobile-friendly, 10–15 minutes. No candidate account needed.
Fit band, dimension alignment, strengths, watchouts, and probes. A summary a hiring manager actually opens.
Same questions, same anchors, same panel. This cuts the drift that creeps in when every interviewer follows a hunch.
After the hire, the profile becomes a manager-ready 30/60/90 brief. The data keeps working past the offer letter.
Each type measures a different thing and predicts a different slice of performance. Most teams combine two or three.
If you already run a cognitive test, adding a second one barely moves the needle; the two measure the same thing. Add a personality measure and it does move, because it reads a different quality. Buy signals that don't overlap.
The platform scores the Big Five through the IPIP-NEO, a public-domain instrument validated on 619,150 people. The hiring evidence is specific. Conscientiousness predicts performance in nearly every job family; Barrick and Mount established that in 1991. Other traits earn their keep role by role: extraversion in sales and leadership, agreeableness where cooperation is the job.
Be careful with older league tables. Sackett, Zhang, Berry and Lievens re-estimated the classic validity figures in 2022 and several came down. Cognitive ability dropped to about .31, behind a well-built structured interview at roughly .42. The methods still work. The lesson is to combine two or three low-overlap methods instead of crowning one.
Tett and Christiansen's review adds the condition that makes personality testing defensible: the trait has to connect to actual work behaviour. That's why role weights come first here, and why you approve them before any candidate answers a question.
No account. Mobile-first. Plain workplace language, a visible progress bar, and none of the clinical framing that makes people feel tested rather than met. Personality data is treated as sensitive hiring information, with access limited to the people who need it.
Candidates also keep a personal copy of their report. A good assessment gives something back, so the process feels like a fair exchange rather than data extraction. That goodwill survives whether or not you make the hire.
Same science backbone, different success templates. The same trait can mean very different things in different jobs.
Pipeline discipline, resilience, coachability, prospecting energy.
Patience, tone control, empathy, conflict load, process consistency.
Relationship depth, proactive communication, account judgement.
Delegation habits, feedback style, emotional steadiness, decision rhythm.
Reliability, prioritisation, process adherence, cautiousness.
Autonomy preference, collaboration style, ambiguity tolerance, attention to detail.
High assertiveness helps an outbound salesperson and frustrates a procedural-consistency role. High openness helps in product discovery and distracts from repeatable execution. We start with the job, not with a generic ideal employee.
Each domain breaks into six facets. These are the specific tendencies that matter day to day, and what role profiling actually targets.
Two people can score identically on Conscientiousness and differ sharply on Orderliness vs. Achievement-Striving. A warehouse supervisor needs the first. A sales executive needs the second. Facet-level data is what makes role profiling precise enough to be useful.
We measure all 30 facets through the IPIP-NEO 120-item inventory, described in Johnson's 2014 development paper, the foundation behind our free Big Five test.
Different assessments answer different questions. The trouble starts when you ask one to do the others' job.
The term gets used loosely. The cleanest distinction: a personality assessment measures typical tendencies, a behavioural interview asks for past examples, a situational judgement test asks what someone would do, and a work sample asks them to do it. The strongest hiring systems combine more than one job-relevant signal, the way Sackett and colleagues' updated review describes.
Personality data is one structured input. Documented, reviewable, and subordinate to human judgement.
The EEOC treats personality tests as selection procedures, so that's the rule we work to. Job-related behaviours, visible role weights, no hidden auto-rejection. Everything EEOC testing guidance asks for, by design.
The ADA restricts pre-offer medical examinations, including tests designed to reveal impairments; EEOC guidance explains the line. We are not a clinical instrument and we don't ask clinical questions.
The Uniform Guidelines ask for job-relatedness, validation, and adverse-impact monitoring; the EEOC's Q&A covers the four-fifths rule. Same assessment, same scoring, every candidate, kept on file.
New York City's Local Law 144 may require a bias audit, public audit information, and candidate notices for automated employment decision tools. The requirements are summarised in the NYC DCWP AEDT guidance.
GDPR Article 22 addresses solely automated decision-making where decisions produce legal or similarly weighty effects. The platform is built for human-reviewed workflows, not invisible automated hiring.
None of the above is legal advice. Your legal and IO psychology partners should review your final process, especially for high-volume hiring, regulated roles, or jurisdictions with specific automated-decision rules.
Most assessment failures come from how the test is used, not from the test.
A score should sharpen the next conversation, not replace it. The moment a number rejects a person on its own, you have stopped hiring and started gating.
Healthy teams are built from differences that are understood and supported, not from the same person copied seven times.
Tune the criteria after the candidates arrive and you will always find what you were hoping to find. Lock the profile first.
A calm, detail-heavy operations role and a high-ambiguity sales role should not share a success template. Specificity is the whole point.
Hiring assessment lives in normal-range workplace behaviour. Cross into clinical territory and you may discover the line in court.
If your interviewers can't explain the score, they shouldn't use it. Transparency is how a panel argues honestly with the data.
Selection that ends at the offer wastes its most useful artefact. The insight that helped you hire also helps the manager support the hire.
Built on more than two decades of measurement
Most hiring tools are younger than the problem they claim to solve. We've delivered more than 250 million tests since 2003. The science is the public-domain IPIP-NEO, validated across 619,150 participants. What we built is the workflow: the reports, the interview guides, and the onboarding briefs that hiring teams actually open on a Monday morning.
Paste any JD: a public posting, an internal brief, or a rough draft. We read the responsibilities, the collaboration demands, the pace and the pressure points, then draft a role success profile. You review the trait weights before candidates see anything. Confirm the profile reflects the real work before you launch.
A structured assessment used during hiring to read how a candidate tends to work: how they plan, collaborate, respond to pressure and follow through. Define what the role needs. Measure every candidate the same way. Use the results to ask better interview questions.
Any scored method, used before a hiring decision, that measures something predictive of the job: ability, knowledge, personality, judgement or a skill. Every candidate answers the same questions and is scored the same way, so you compare people on evidence rather than on impressions.
Screening is the wider net: background checks, reference checks, right-to-work verification and the assessments themselves. Testing usually means the scored, predictive instruments specifically. So testing is one part of screening, and it's the part this page covers.
Eight types cover most of what you'll meet: Big Five personality assessments, cognitive ability tests, skills and job-knowledge tests, situational judgement tests, integrity tests, work samples, structured interviews, and physical or role-specific tests. Each measures a different thing, so most teams combine two or three.
Big Five (IPIP-NEO) instruments and their derivatives are the most defensible. DISC and MBTI are common but limited; the Myers-Briggs Company itself doesn't validate the MBTI for hiring. Hogan, Caliper and Predictive Index are also widely used. The comparison table on this page shows where each is strong.
Because resumes say little about what people are like to work with. Schmidt and Hunter's 1998 review of selection methods found that structured Big Five plus a behavioural interview predicts job performance about 5× better than reviewing work history alone. Barrick and Mount's meta-analysis showed conscientiousness predicts performance across nearly every occupation.
Yes, when used carefully. They should be job-related, consistently administered, and monitored for fairness. They shouldn't be clinical tests dressed up as workplace tools. The EEOC draws that line in its employment testing guidance. None of this is legal advice.
It depends on the method and how you use it. Decades of research, re-estimated by Sackett and colleagues in 2022, show that structured, scored methods predict performance better than an unstructured chat. No assessment is a crystal ball. A well-chosen one reduces noise; it doesn't remove judgement.
There isn't a single winner for every role. Older sources crowned cognitive ability, but the 2022 Sackett re-analysis brought its estimate down to about .31, behind a well-built structured interview at roughly .42. The stronger move is combining two or three low-overlap methods so each one tells you something the others miss.
No, and it shouldn't. A Big Five measure tells you how someone tends to work and collaborate. That's one input, not a verdict. Used well, it shapes the interview questions and the onboarding plan. Used as a standalone gate, it's both weaker and harder to defend.
Adverse impact happens when a selection method screens out people from a protected group at a substantially higher rate than others, even unintentionally. It doesn't make a test illegal by itself, but it shifts the burden to you to show the method is genuinely job-related. Physical and cognitive tests carry the highest risk.
Five broad domains that summarise most of personality: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and emotional stability. Continuous traits, not types. It's the model with the strongest evidence base in workplace research, and it's the one we score against. Candidates and employees can experience the same instrument first-hand with our free workplace personality test.
About 10–15 minutes for the candidate. About 60 seconds for you, if you already have a JD. Spend the saved time reviewing the role profile before launch, especially for senior or regulated hires.
No. Personality data informs the interview and the onboarding plan; it never silently rejects anyone. A low-fit area becomes a structured question to explore. Every score traces back to the role profile, the candidate's responses, the norm tables, and the trait weights you approved, so the reasoning stays reviewable.
Yes. The same insight supports communication, manager coaching and onboarding. Our team personality test maps a whole group's Big Five profiles side by side for exactly that.
Run your first campaign free. No card, no clock, no catches. After that, paid plans match how much hiring you actually do. Most teams onboard with shareable candidate links and exports; deeper ATS integrations are scoped during onboarding.
Want the numbers up front? View pricing →
Reviewed for accuracy against the cited selection literature. General information about pre-employment testing, not legal advice.
Paste a job description. Get a candidate fit profile, a structured interview guide, and a 30/60/90 onboarding brief from your dashboard. No credit card and no clock running.