Personality tests: Thoughts?

Does anyone know where I can pick up some psychological personality tests used during job hiring processes here in the States?

Is there a specific firm out there that offers this kind of testing as a service?

Personality tests—or psychometric questionnaires, if you want to be technical—are typically only accessible to psychologists working within a corporate setting.
The official publisher for these assessments is Slap, based out of Naperville.

When it comes to candidate screening, firms like Hill International and Adecco handle the heavy lifting (though there are others, these two are the industry leaders).

Thanks for the heads-up. I guess I'm wondering if you need some kind of specialized training to actually make sense of these personality test results? And honestly, how accurate are they even supposed to be?

wanderingcrane97 said:Does anyone know where I can pick up some psychological personality tests used during job hiring processes here in the States?

Is there a specific firm out there that offers this kind of testing as a service?

Keep in mind that psychological tests can only be ordered and administered by licensed psychologists. There are several publishing companies that handle distribution—for instance, the state employment agencies, the psychology departments at major universities, or even Slap. The selection isn't massive, but it exists! I know for a fact that both the Sirius Center www.centar-sirius.hr and Creativa (www.creativa.hr) specialize in this area and come highly recommended. The tests they use are extremely reliable, and as always, the interpretations are handled by licensed professionals. If you head over to those links, you'll find plenty of details on what their business consulting services actually entail.

Best,

wanderingcrane97 said:Thanks for the heads-up. I guess I'm wondering if you need some kind of specialized training to actually make sense of these personality test results? And honestly, how accurate are they even supposed to be?

It really depends on what you're looking for. Any trained psychologist knows which tools to use and how to properly interpret the data, so yes, specialized expertise is definitely necessary.

Is there maybe some psychologist who actually handles the testing and analysis of personality assessments in person? I’m asking because I figure hiring an individual might be a cheaper way to go than bringing in some big firm.

So, what is it that you're actually looking for?

wanderingcrane97 said:Is there maybe some psychologist who actually handles the testing and analysis of personality assessments in person? I’m asking because I figure hiring an individual might be a cheaper way to go than bringing in some big firm.

As far as I know, an independent psychologist can't just order these tests on their own.
As for how accurate they actually are... that's a complicated issue.
It all comes down to predictive validity—essentially, how well a test score correlates with actual job performance.
In roles where you can easily quantify success, establishing that correlation is straightforward.
However, for many positions, even measuring performance itself relies on subjective and often arbitrary criteria.
Theoretically, any test is useful if its selection ratio is higher than the base rate.
The base rate is the percentage of successful hires without any screening at all; the selection ratio is the percentage of successes among candidates chosen through a specific process.
The problem is that base rates are rarely known. No US company is going to hire every single applicant just to establish a baseline.
Generally speaking, the more complex a role is—requiring specialized knowledge and skills—the lower the base rate. For simpler jobs, the base rate is higher.

wanderingcrane97 said:Is there maybe some psychologist who actually handles the testing and analysis of personality assessments in person? I’m asking because I figure hiring an individual might be a cheaper way to go than bringing in some big firm.

Honestly, I actually think you’ll save more money by going through a firm! When you hire a company, you're essentially just paying the sales tax. If you try to hire someone as an independent contractor, those payroll taxes and withholdings end up being significantly higher. Even if you try to set them up under a specialized intellectual property contract, you're still looking at a much higher total cost—I mean, you'd probably have to shell out an extra 40% on top of their net rate just to cover everything. Isn't it easier to just deal with the flat tax?

If you really want to stick with an individual, though, shoot me a private message and I can send some names your way.

Gerald Rivera60 said:As far as I know, an independent psychologist can't just order these tests on their own.
As for how accurate they actually are... that's a complicated issue.
It all comes down to predictive validity—essentially, how well a test score correlates with actual job performance.
In roles where you can easily quantify success, establishing that correlation is straightforward.
However, for many positions, even measuring performance itself relies on subjective and often arbitrary criteria.
Theoretically, any test is useful if its selection ratio is higher than the base rate.
The base rate is the percentage of successful hires without any screening at all; the selection ratio is the percentage of successes among candidates chosen through a specific process.
The problem is that base rates are rarely known. No US company is going to hire every single applicant just to establish a baseline.
Generally speaking, the more complex a role is—requiring specialized knowledge and skills—the lower the base rate. For simpler jobs, the base rate is higher.

Look, if a psychologist is licensed, they actually *can* order tests as an individual. But let's be real—it's pretty rare to see an unemployed psychologist buying up expensive testing kits. Usually, someone employed at an institution (like a local high school, for example) might order specific professional selection tests to take on some freelance work. In those cases, they’re acting as a private contractor rather than working through their employer. Makes sense, right?

By the way, I really appreciate your breakdown regarding how reliable these tests are. My only worry is that very few people here will truly grasp the nuance, since there aren't many folks on this forum who actually work in psychology professionally. Just a bit of advice from a future colleague to a current one: try to keep your answers a bit more down-to-earth and common-sense based! 🙂

Daniel White15 said:Look, if a psychologist is licensed, they actually *can* order tests as an individual. But let's be real—it's pretty rare to see an unemployed psychologist buying up expensive testing kits. Usually, someone employed at an institution (like a local high school, for example) might order specific professional selection tests to take on some freelance work. In those cases, they’re acting as a private contractor rather than working through their employer. Makes sense, right?

By the way, I really appreciate your breakdown regarding how reliable these tests are. My only worry is that very few people here will truly grasp the nuance, since there aren't many folks on this forum who actually work in psychology professionally. Just a bit of advice from a future colleague to a current one: try to keep your answers a bit more down-to-earth and common-sense based! 🙂

Oh, really? I didn't know that... so you're saying I can just moonlighting?
Just kidding. There's no way. My current job is more than enough.

By the way, I appreciate your explanation regarding the reliability of these tests, but I worry very few people grasp that. Hardly anyone on this forum actually works in psychology. Just some friendly advice from a colleague (to a future one): use common sense. 🙂

I was hoping you'd say everyone understands... 🙂
No offense taken regarding the advice... 👍
I am always open to hearing suggestions...
My point was simply this: a test is successful if it results in a higher ratio of successful hires compared to when no testing is performed at all.

Daniel White15, thanks for the heads up. Seriously. Shoot me a DM with that psychologist's info when you can. I'll probably weigh both options before making a call.

Is there even a standard going rate for these kinds of personality tests? Or is it just whatever they want to charge?

And what makes you so curious about that?

Prices vary quite a bit depending on what specifically you're looking for. There really isn't such a thing as an average price.

Hey, I actually have a quick question for you, Gerald Rivera60
So, I was wondering, what would the cost be for a psychological profile if we decided to skip the cognitive ability testing part?
Would that basically cut the price in half? 😁

I am not entirely certain how the legal framework is structured here in the States, but I suspect that, ideally, only licensed psychologists or properly qualified professionals should be authorized to conduct psychological diagnostics. It seems inevitable that this would reduce the number of unqualified practitioners in the field.
It isn't merely about administering a test and totaling up a score; the clinical history is just as vital, as is providing correct instructions during testing, and—just as importantly—interpreting the results after the fact to determine the appropriate intervention!

Furthermore, a major flaw with many personality tests is how predictable they are for the individual taking them.
I mean, what would you even check if you were trying to avoid being disqualified from a job and encountered questions like, "I wake up in the morning feeling refreshed and in a good mood... yes/no"? It is fairly obvious which answer is the "correct" one to give.

Kenneth Perez10 said:I am not entirely certain how the legal framework is structured here in the States, but I suspect that, ideally, only licensed psychologists or properly qualified professionals should be authorized to conduct psychological diagnostics. It seems inevitable that this would reduce the number of unqualified practitioners in the field.
It isn't merely about administering a test and totaling up a score; the clinical history is just as vital, as is providing correct instructions during testing, and—just as importantly—interpreting the results after the fact to determine the appropriate intervention!

Furthermore, a major flaw with many personality tests is how predictable they are for the individual taking them.
I mean, what would you even check if you were trying to avoid being disqualified from a job and encountered questions like, "I wake up in the morning feeling refreshed and in a good mood... yes/no"? It is fairly obvious which answer is the "correct" one to give.

Legally, it's set up so that only licensed psychologists are allowed to administer these tools. I totally agree that anyone can learn the mechanics of how to give a test or how to grade one (assuming we're talking about objective tests rather than projective ones), but what sets a psychologist apart from everyone else is knowing exactly what to do with those results once they're in hand (assuming, of course, we're talking about a professional who actually knows what they're doing 🙂). The downside of objective personality tests is that answers can be predicted, but every single test has built-in validity scales to detect if someone is trying to game the system—it shows exactly where someone is being dishonest. Sure, if someone is determined enough, they might try to slip through, but you have to manage the questions (which can easily exceed 200!) and understand exactly what each statement is measuring (though that's certainly not impossible). That's why, during testing, we combine different approaches and supplement them with projective tests, which even a seasoned psychologist couldn't crack unless they were specifically trained in that particular method.

Thomas Martinez67 said:Hey, I actually have a quick question for you, Gerald Rivera60
So, I was wondering, what would the cost be for a psychological profile if we decided to skip the cognitive ability testing part?
Would that basically cut the price in half? 😁

would 🙂

Daniel White15 said:Legally, it's set up so that only licensed psychologists are allowed to administer these tools. I totally agree that anyone can learn the mechanics of how to give a test or how to grade one (assuming we're talking about objective tests rather than projective ones), but what sets a psychologist apart from everyone else is knowing exactly what to do with those results once they're in hand (assuming, of course, we're talking about a professional who actually knows what they're doing 🙂). The downside of objective personality tests is that answers can be predicted, but every single test has built-in validity scales to detect if someone is trying to game the system—it shows exactly where someone is being dishonest. Sure, if someone is determined enough, they might try to slip through, but you have to manage the questions (which can easily exceed 200!) and understand exactly what each statement is measuring (though that's certainly not impossible). That's why, during testing, we combine different approaches and supplement them with projective tests, which even a seasoned psychologist couldn't crack unless they were specifically trained in that particular method.

Oh, how I adore projective techniques... 😍
They are, naturally, far more effective in a clinical setting than in corporate recruitment scenarios, but I have heard whispers from colleagues in HR selection that they are being utilized more frequently these days. 👍

Excuse me? I might have missed something here 🤔
From what I've gathered, projective techniques have a pretty poor reputation. Even when they are actually used, they are never treated as the primary tool, but rather just as a way to supplement something else.

I suppose there might be some newer methods out there that I haven't heard of yet—ones that don't suffer from that massive lack of objectivity inherent to the old ones.
However, objectivity is one of the three fundamental criteria for the validity of any test or technique; meanwhile, projective techniques are essentially textbook examples of subjective diagnosis, among other flaws.

I think I still have quite a bit to learn when it comes to projective techniques; I definitely need some long-term training. For instance, mastering the Rorschach tests would require about three years of specialized education in Switzerland.