Personality Tests: A Job Seeker's Perspective

I’ve never been a big fan of personality tests. In fact, they’ve always frustrated me.?

Most of the questions present sterilised and overly simplistic queries, with answers that deal in absolutes. You must choose this or that, for every variant of a scenario. Choose wisely because your answer will forever label you as X personality type who approaches every single ‘challenge’ the same way - whether that be dealing with a bully, adjusting a task to accommodate a new development or coping with the death of a family member.

If you’re lucky, “Neutral’ is offered up as an alternative to the extremes. But choose it too often and you risk being assessed as indifferent, apathetic or uninvolved. Not a good ‘cultural fit’, not ‘dynamic’ enough or too much of a people-pleaser.?

If only life was as binary as these personality tests suggest. It’s not.

Life is complex and situations are nuanced. Anyone with solid logic and high emotional intelligence will take each situation’s unique circumstances into account as they navigate it. What worked last time may not work now.?

Over the last few weeks, I’ve had to do several personality tests while applying for jobs.?

Each time I have felt frustrated by the lack of context in the questions and annoyed at either/or answer choices that don’t accurately reflect my character.

I started wondering things like “How accurate is this test scientifically?” or “How up to date with modern psychology is this?” and even “I wonder what percentage of the initial test subjects for this were women or people of colour?”.?

When you start asking questions about these tests and then go looking for answers, you find some red flags almost immediately.

The Personality Tests

There seem to be eight personality tests commonly used in recruitment:

• Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
• The Caliper Profile
• Employee Personality Profile (EPP)
• DISC Assessment
• 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF)
• Enneagram
• Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI)
• Keirsey Temperament Sorter

If you’re curious about the scientific validity of these frameworks, don’t hold your breath. A bit of basic research reveals significant variations in the scientific rigor behind these personality assessments. Red flag number one.

I wanted to assess these frameworks based on the following:

• Use of up-to-date psychology methods and research findings
• Basis of findings and frameworks in scientific fact
• Peer-reviewed studies and journals
• Replicated studies where results have been either duplicated or similar to the original study
• Use of PRISMA review standard/guideline for research findings
• Transparency in published data of test subject demographics
• Use of unbiased test subject selection criteria
• Diverse demographics in test subject pools

I realise that this is not an exhaustive list of comprehensive criteria but these are the things I was curious about.?

Unfortunately, without access to academic databases or the original research material, it’s difficult to answer these questions fully.

But, there is enough publicly available material to do a simple review of these eight personality tests.?

At the end of this piece, I have included a rating* of each personality assessment framework, based on my criteria. It’s interesting reading for the curious, but if you want a quick overview of what I found, here it is.

Standout findings from my review:

• For most of the tests, there is little to no transparency about test subject demographics.?
• Some of the tests have limited or no scientific basis and have been heavily criticised.
• A few of the tests have not been updated to reflect modern psychological understanding.
• There are reliability concerns in peer reviews and replicated studies for many of them.
• Only two frameworks have featured international validation studies.
• A couple of the tests assess men and women differently for the exact same results.
• Demographic diversity in test subjects is lacking in most of these tests.

That's Red Flag number nine.

But wait, there's more...

Another major criticism of these tests is how difficult it is to detect whether someone has lied. And many do apparently - especially in the case of job applications where candidates are concerned about their results affecting their application success. Who wouldn’t be worried about answering “Stick to the rules”, not knowing whether you will be interpreted as unadaptable and stubborn or reliable and systematic? What if they’re asking this question because they want to see how creative you are and if you can think outside of the box, or are they asking this because they want to know if you’re a conformist who is too afraid to test boundaries?

Depending on the job, team and company culture, the ‘correct’ answer to this question can vary. A candidate can easily lie and pick an answer they think will improve their chances of getting the job.

Okay, but...

Now I realise that I am not a psychologist or qualified researcher in this field, and I have not spent months reviewing the academic materials of each study and its peer reviews. But these basic findings leave me concerned about why these personality tests are being used in recruitment.?

In researching the topic, I came across this:

“We try not to use flawed tools to do finance, accounting, software development, design, or data analysis. Why is it acceptable to use flawed tools to understand and manage the most important thing in organisations – people?” - Tom Geraghty

This is a valid question that recruiters and hiring managers need to answer. How can you expect to get an optimal outcome from a buggy process?

Of the eight, the 16PF and HPI stand out as having the strongest scientific foundation and yet they seem to be used less often. Popular tests like MBTI and DISC lack substantial empirical support but the MBTI test is included in numerous online job applications. It’s worth noting here that people can get different MBTI test results when they take the test a second time. I know I have.

So what’s the answer?

How do recruiters assess candidates accurately without spending countless hours interviewing every respondent?

I don’t have the perfect solution and it seems that critics of personality tests don’t either. They seem to either be in favour of removing personality tests from the hiring process or using a holistic approach to candidate assessment.

Here are some of the suggestions I came across:

• If you use a personality assessment in your hiring process, use one that is based on science, is up to date with modern psychology and does not show biased results based on gender, age, ethnicity or cultural background.
• Ensure that you’re not exclusively relying on personality tests to evaluate candidates.
• Consider presenting candidates with scenarios they are likely to face in the role to assess their suitability.?

And what about those of us in the job market who keep coming across these tests?

There’s no perfect solution here either.

I can only share how I am now approaching job applications. I have started giving feedback. And I encourage you to do the same.

If I’m sent a personality test, I share my concerns about its scientific validity. I point out that it may not accurately reflect my personality or suitability for the role. I’ve also started providing feedback when I’m sent tasks or skill tests.

Maybe some recruiters or hiring managers will be offended by this. And if you are then the reasons behind that are something for you to explore.?

Because if you’ve read this far and haven’t picked up that I’ve explored this topic out of frustration, concern and genuine desire for the truth, then you have misunderstood my intentions here.

I can only hope that I have given you something to think about or inspired you to review that unscientific personality test and look for a better one to use.

And to my fellow job seekers, good luck! It’s a jungle out there, so don’t take those tests too personally. ;)?

Personality tests don’t dictate who you are nor do they determine your value.

PS: I’ve listed some of the articles I found valuable at the end of the analysis.

PPS: I used Claude 3.5 to collate and organise information on the personality tests, and then assess and review them based on my criteria. I did a basic check of the results, so if there's a mistake here, please feel free to message me with the info.

Analysis of Personality Assessment Frameworks Based on 8 Criteria*

The Criteria

• Use of up-to-date psychology methods and research findings
• Basis of findings and frameworks in scientific fact
• Peer-reviewed studies and journals
• Replicated studies where results have been either duplicated or similar to the original study
• Use of PRISMA review standard/guideline for research findings
• Transparency in published data of test subject demographics
• Use of unbiased test subject selection criteria
• Diverse demographics in test subject pools

Rating Scale

• Strong Evidence (??): Substantial published evidence fulfilling the criterion
• Limited Evidence (?): Some evidence, albeit with significant gaps
• Weak/No Evidence (?): Little to no published evidence fulfilling the criterion
• Unclear (?): Insufficient information available

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

• Up-to-date psychology methods: ?

Based on Jung's theories from the 1920s

Limited updates to reflect modern psychological understanding

Continues to utilise forced dichotomies despite evidence that personality traits exist on continua

• Scientific basis: ?

Lacks robust empirical support for the proposed personality types

Type-based approach contradicts evidence that personality traits are continuous

• Peer-reviewed studies: ?

Numerous peer-reviewed studies, albeit many highlight reliability and validity concerns

Limited support in contemporary psychological journals

• Replicated studies: ?

Poor test-retest reliability

Different results often obtained when people retake the test

• PRISMA review standard: ?

No systematic reviews following PRISMA guidelines

Limited transparency in research methodology

• Demographic transparency: ?

Limited publication of detailed demographic data from validation studies

Unclear representation across different populations

• Unbiased selection: ?

Historical validation studies primarily utilised university students and corporate employees

Selection bias in validation samples

• Diverse demographics: ?

Originally developed using primarily white, middle-class Americans

Limited cross-cultural validation

The Caliper Profile

• Up-to-date psychology methods: ?

Regular updates to assessment methodology

Incorporates modern workplace psychology concepts

• Scientific basis: ?

Based on validated psychological constructs

Proprietary nature limits full scientific scrutiny

• Peer-reviewed studies: ?

Few independent peer-reviewed studies

Most research conducted internally by Caliper

• Replicated studies: ?

Limited public information about replication studies

Proprietary nature restricts independent verification

• PRISMA review standard: ?

No published systematic reviews using PRISMA guidelines

• Demographic transparency: ?

Limited public information about validation sample demographics

• Unbiased selection: ?

Selection criteria for validation studies not publicly available

• Diverse demographics: ?

Limited information about demographic diversity in validation studies

16PF (Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire)

• Up-to-date psychology methods: ??

Regular updates to reflect current psychological understanding

Latest revision incorporates modern psychometric methods

• Scientific basis: ??

Based on factor analytic research

Strong empirical foundation

• Peer-reviewed studies: ??

Extensive peer-reviewed research

Well-documented in scientific literature

• Replicated studies: ??

Multiple independent replications

Consistent factor structure across studies

• PRISMA review standard: ?

Some systematic reviews following modern standards

Could benefit from more PRISMA-compliant reviews

• Demographic transparency: ?

Published demographic data for normative samples

Could be more comprehensive

• Unbiased selection: ?

Documented selection criteria

Some potential for sampling bias

• Diverse demographics: ?

International validation studies

Room for improvement in demographic representation

DISC Assessment

• Up-to-date psychology methods: ?

Based on 1920s theory

Limited integration of modern psychological research

• Scientific basis: ?

Limited empirical support for four-factor model

Lacks robust theoretical foundation

• Peer-reviewed studies: ?

Few independent peer-reviewed studies

Limited academic validation

• Replicated studies: ?

Limited replication studies

Inconsistent results across different versions

• PRISMA review standard: ?

No systematic reviews using PRISMA guidelines

• Demographic transparency: ?

Limited publication of validation sample demographics

• Unbiased selection: ?

Selection criteria often not reported

Commercial focus over scientific rigour

• Diverse demographics: ?

Limited information about demographic diversity

Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI)

• Up-to-date psychology methods: ??

Based on contemporary personality theory

Regular updates to methodology

• Scientific basis: ??

Strong theoretical foundation in the Five Factor Model

Extensive validation research

• Peer-reviewed studies: ??

Numerous independent peer-reviewed studies

Well-documented in scientific literature

• Replicated studies: ?

Several replication studies

Generally consistent results

• PRISMA review standard: ?

Some systematic reviews

More PRISMA-compliant reviews needed

• Demographic transparency: ?

Published demographic data

Could be more comprehensive

• Unbiased selection: ?

Documented selection criteria

Some potential for sampling bias

• Diverse demographics: ?

International validation studies

Ongoing efforts to improve demographic representation

Summary Rankings (Most to Least Scientifically Supported):

1. 16PF (Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire)
2. Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI)
3. Caliper Profile
4. MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator)
5. DISC Assessment

* I was unable to adequately review the Enneagram and Keirsey Temperament Sorter assessments due to significantly limited scientific validation data. So I have not listed them in this section.

Some of the articles I found helpful:

The Problems with Personality Tests

Why Personality Assessments Do More Harm Than Good

The Danger of Personality Tests

We took the world’s most scientific personality test—and discovered unexpectedly sexist results

Critique of Personality Profiling (Myers-Briggs, DISC, Predictive Index, Tilt, etc)

Are Personality Tests Actually Useful?

The Dark Side of Personality Tests in Recruitment: What Employers Need to Know

I have not listed all the articles that I read. Please note that many articles advocated for the use of personality tests - some of them did not list the potential issues and others cautioned against viewing the results as authoritative.