Assessment Profile
Briefly describe the test (optional)
Configure Category Weights
Assign a percentage weight to each category based on your organization's priorities. Weights must total 100%.
When to adjust weights: The default weighting (40 / 35 / 25) reflects a balanced view of assessment quality. Consider increasing Psychometric Integrity if scientific rigour is your primary concern, or if the assessment will be used for high-stakes decisions. Increase Equity & Defensibility if your organization operates in a highly regulated environment or faces legal scrutiny. Strategic & Operational Fit is capped at a maximum of 30% to preserve the integrity of the quality spectrum results. Psychometric Integrity and Equity & Defensibility each have a minimum weight of 25%.
Psychometric Integrity
Validity, reliability, standardization and scientific rigour
%
Equity & Defensibility
Fairness, bias mitigation, legal compliance and auditability
%
Strategic & Operational Fit
Alignment with business goals, practicality and scalability
%
✓ Total: 100% — Weights are valid
Weight: 40%
Question 1
Does the assessment have a clear theoretical basis or documented evidence that it measures the construct(s) it is intended to measure?
Question 2
Is there documented evidence that the assessment produces consistent results (e.g. a candidate scoring similarly if retested, or different scorers reaching the same conclusion)?
Question 3
How would you rate the quality of the reference data available to interpret scores — for example, how people in similar roles or industries typically perform? (1 = Poor or none, 5 = Excellent and current)
Question 4
Are the assessment instructions, conditions and scoring criteria standardized across all candidates?
Question 5
How well does this assessment measure what it is supposed to measure? (1 = Very Low, 5 = Very High)
e.g. does it use more than one method or exercise within the tool to evaluate the construct from different angles — rather than relying on a single question type or format alone?
e.g. does it use more than one method or exercise within the tool to evaluate the construct from different angles — rather than relying on a single question type or format alone?
Question 6
How would you rate the overall clarity of how scores are calculated and interpreted? (1 = Unclear, 5 = Fully transparent)
Question 7
Is the assessment reviewed and updated periodically to ensure ongoing relevance and validity?
Question 8
Is there documented evidence that the constructs and content of this assessment were informed by a job analysis, competency model, or other formal analysis of the target role?
e.g. a job analysis report, competency framework, or documented link between role requirements and what the assessment measures.
e.g. a job analysis report, competency framework, or documented link between role requirements and what the assessment measures.
Question 9
Is there empirical evidence — such as a validation study, meta-analytic evidence, or a formal transportability study — that this assessment predicts relevant job outcomes?
e.g. a criterion-related validity study showing the assessment correlates with job performance, or published meta-analytic evidence supporting its predictive value for similar roles.
e.g. a criterion-related validity study showing the assessment correlates with job performance, or published meta-analytic evidence supporting its predictive value for similar roles.
Weight: 35%
Question 1
Who was involved in developing or reviewing this assessment for fairness and content quality?
Question 2
How would you rate the degree to which the assessment provides equitable opportunity for all candidates, including those from employment equity groups, to demonstrate their competence? (1 = Significant barriers, 5 = Fully equitable)
Question 3
Are accommodations or alternate versions of tests available for candidates with disabilities or special requirements?
Question 4
Is there written documentation explaining why this assessment is relevant and appropriate for the job?
Question 5
How would you rate the quality of record-keeping and audit trail associated with the assessment process?
1 = No records, 5 = Comprehensive
1 = No records, 5 = Comprehensive
Question 6
Does the assessment comply with relevant provincial and federal legislation and policies (e.g. Accessibility, Privacy, Employment Equity, Human Rights)?
Question 7
Is candidate report, feedback or debriefing available to support transparency and perceived fairness?
Question 8
How would you rate the overall defensibility of the assessment selection decisions if challenged? (1 = Indefensible, 5 = Fully defensible)
Consider: Is there a clear job-relatedness rationale? Are scoring decisions documented? Were assessors trained and consistent? Is there a formal appeals or review process?
Consider: Is there a clear job-relatedness rationale? Are scoring decisions documented? Were assessors trained and consistent? Is there a formal appeals or review process?
Question 9
Has this assessment been reviewed for adverse impact — that is, whether it produces meaningfully different selection outcomes for candidates from protected or employment equity groups — and is there a process to monitor this on an ongoing basis during operational use?
Adverse impact review may include subgroup score comparisons, impact ratio analysis, or differential item functioning (DIF) studies. Ongoing monitoring means tracking outcomes by demographic group during live use.
Adverse impact review may include subgroup score comparisons, impact ratio analysis, or differential item functioning (DIF) studies. Ongoing monitoring means tracking outcomes by demographic group during live use.
Weight: 25%
Question 1
Does the assessment align with the organization's current or future strategic workforce priorities?
Question 2
How would you rate the ease of administration and overall candidate experience — including clarity of instructions, time demands, and the smoothness of the process from start to finish? (1 = Cumbersome, 5 = Seamless)
Question 3
Is the assessment cost-effective relative to the value it provides in selection decision quality?
Consider: the total cost per use relative to candidate volumes, frequency of use, and the criticality of the role — a rigorous, higher-cost tool is more easily justified when hiring for high-impact positions or at scale.
Consider: the total cost per use relative to candidate volumes, frequency of use, and the criticality of the role — a rigorous, higher-cost tool is more easily justified when hiring for high-impact positions or at scale.
Question 4
Is the assessment likely to be perceived by candidates as a worthwhile and respectful experience — one that is relevant to the role, fair in its demands, and unlikely to cause undue stress or disadvantage?
Question 5
How likely are hiring managers to accept and act on the results of this assessment? (1 = Very unlikely, 5 = Very likely)
Question 6
Is this assessment likely to be integrated effectively with existing HR systems and workflows?
Question 7
How would you rate the usefulness of the results or outputs from this tool for informing subsequent talent decisions, such as onboarding, development planning, or the next stage of assessment? (1 = Not useful, 5 = Highly useful)
Question 8
Is there a process for tracking whether candidates who score well on this assessment go on to perform well in the role — and using that information to improve future hiring decisions?
e.g. post-hire performance reviews linked back to assessment results, manager feedback loops, or structured follow-up at 3–12 months to evaluate predictive accuracy in your specific context.
e.g. post-hire performance reviews linked back to assessment results, manager feedback loops, or structured follow-up at 3–12 months to evaluate predictive accuracy in your specific context.
Assessment Profile
Country
—
Organization Type
—
Goal
—
Scope of Use
—
Type of Test
—
Administration
—
Expected Volumes
—
Scoring Approach
—
Construct(s) Being Assessed
—
Test Description
—
Assessment Quality Spectrum
🔮
Low
📋
Medium
🏆
High
Key Observations
I'd love to hear how this tool worked for you. Please share your feedback with me through
LinkedIn.