The research traditions behind our assessment approach.
IntelligencesTest uses research-informed assessment ideas to support recruitment workflows. Sources guide construct design, scoring caution, structured interviewing, and responsible communication.
How we use sources.
Sources are not decoration. They help define what a signal can reasonably support and where the limits should be stated.
Construct design
Research helps define what an assessment is intended to measure.
Interpretation caution
Evidence strength affects how confidently a report should describe a signal.
Interview follow-up
Recruitment value increases when assessment signals become structured questions.
Source categories.
For agencies, the most useful source categories connect assessment outputs to practical recruiter decisions.
Psychometric standards
Guidance on reliability, validity, fairness, interpretation, and responsible assessment use.
Structured interviewing
Research and practice around consistent, role-relevant interview questions.
Cognitive and work-style research
Evidence traditions that inform problem-solving, personality, and behavioral signal interpretation.
What sources do not do.
A citation does not turn a report into a final answer.
Sources support
- Clear constructs.
- Better report language.
- Transparent limits.
- More structured recruiter questions.
Sources do not replace
- Role analysis.
- Structured interviews.
- Work samples.
- References.
- Recruiter and client judgment.
Key sources referenced across our reports.
Named specifically, not left abstract — these are the research traditions most directly reflected in how assessments are scored and reports are written.
Schmidt & Hunter (1998)
Meta-analysis of 85 years of personnel-selection research, Psychological Bulletin. The basis for combining structured assessment with structured interviews rather than relying on either alone.
Barrick & Mount (1991)
Meta-analysis of the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance, Personnel Psychology. Informs several role-specific assessments, including conscientiousness-linked traits like attention to detail and sales discipline.
Hsee (1996), evaluability hypothesis
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. The basis for presenting candidates jointly in a comparison matrix rather than as separate sequential reports.
Kahneman, Sibony & Sunstein, Noise (2021)
Documents how unstructured judgment varies by evaluator and by case even among experienced professionals — the basis for the decision-support framing behind standardised evaluation.
Dietvorst, Simmons & Massey (2015)
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, on algorithm aversion. Informs why the ranking engine shows its full evidence rather than a bare score.
Want to question a source?
If a source, interpretation, or page claim seems too broad, we want to know.