How to Use Personality Assessments in Hiring

Personality assessments can meaningfully improve hiring accuracy when they are used correctly. The evidence for personality assessments in selection is genuine but conditional: validity depends on which instrument is chosen, which traits are evaluated against which role demands, and how the data are combined with other evidence sources. This article sets out the practical steps for deploying personality assessment in hiring in a way that reflects what the science actually supports.

Why Personality Assessments Belong in Hiring

The case for using personality assessments in hiring is grounded in decades of meta-analytic research. Barrick and Mount (1991) established in a landmark synthesis of 117 studies, covering more than 23,000 participants across five occupational groups, that conscientiousness predicts job performance consistently across virtually all roles and industries. Salgado (1997) extended these findings across European Community member states, confirming that the validity of the Big Five personality model for predicting job performance is not culturally specific and holds across national contexts.

The critical qualification comes from Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007), who raised substantive criticisms of personality testing in selection, including concerns about low absolute validity, faking, and insufficient job analysis before deployment. Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, and Judge (2007) published a direct rebuttal, arguing that corrected validity estimates are meaningful for selection decisions, faking effects are limited in magnitude, and broad personality traits appropriately predict broad performance criteria. More recent evidence continues to demonstrate that personality assessments add genuine value predicting career success (Seibert, Akkermans,& 2024).

Step 1: Choose a Validated Instrument

The most consequential decision in deploying personality assessment for hiring is instrument selection. The quality of personality instruments varies enormously, and the term "personality assessment" covers everything from rigorously validated Big Five measures to consumer-facing type quizzes with no criterion validity evidence.

A hiring-grade personality assessment must meet four documented criteria. It must report internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) above .70 for each scale. It must demonstrate test-retest reliability above .70 across intervals of four weeks or more. It must report criterion validity against **job performance outcomes, not merely convergent validity against other personality scales. And it must have been tested for adverse impact across gender, age, and ethnicity, with analyses available before deployment.

Instruments built on the Big Five personality model are the professional standard. Type-based tools, including MBTI, DISC, and the Enneagram, do not have comparable criterion validity evidence for predicting job performance and should not be used in consequential selection decisions (Morgeson et al., 2007).

Step 2: Deploy at the Right Stage of the Funnel

Personality assessments deliver the most value when deployed after an initial application screen and before or alongside a structured interview. Deploying too early, as the first filter in a high-volume funnel, risks reducing candidate experience before any relationship has been established, and produces data without the job-specific context needed for responsible interpretation. Deploying too late, after multiple interview rounds, limits the assessment's ability to inform the conversation and reduces its incremental contribution to the selection decision.

The assessment should be positioned clearly to candidates: what it measures, why it is being used, and how the results will inform the hiring decision. Providing explanations about the assessment purpose consistently improves job acceptance intentions and reduces the perception of unfairness (Hausknecht et al., 2004).

Step 3: Interpret Scores in Role Context

A personality profile is only interpretable in relation to the demands of the specific role. A high conscientiousness score predicts performance in structured, process-driven environments. The same profile in a role requiring flexibility, rapid adaptation, and tolerance for ambiguity carries different implications. Responsible interpretation requires a job analysis that identifies which personality dimensions are relevant to effective performance before the assessment is scored and compared.

Avoid using personality scores as binary cutoffs, rejecting candidates who fall below a fixed threshold on any dimension without reference to the role's actual demands. Personality lies on a continuum, and the research evidence supports using personality data to inform structured discussion and weighting in a selection panel, not to automate reject decisions without human judgment.

Step 4: Combine with Other Validated Methods

Personality assessments produce their strongest predictive validity when combined with other validated selection methods rather than used in isolation. Schmidt and Hunter (1998) demonstrated that the combination of a cognitive ability measure and a conscientiousness assessment produces higher validity than either method alone, because the two constructs capture independent contributions to performance. A structured interview grounded in the same competency framework as the personality assessment then provides behavioral evidence of how the individual's profile has manifested in real situations.

The most defensible pre-employment assessment process combines two to three validated instruments, typically a cognitive ability test, a personality assessment, and a structured interview, each contributing independent and complementary evidence about different aspects of the candidate's likely performance.

Using Personality Assessments Responsibly and Defensibly

The question of legal risk is best reframed as a question of responsible use. A personality assessment does not create risk on its own. Risk comes from using it in a way that cannot be defended against the professional and legal standards that govern selection. Those standards are well established, and following them is what makes an assessment program both effective and defensible. In the United States the governing frameworks are the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (EEOC, 1978), the SIOP Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures (2018), and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014). They converge on the same practical requirements:

Start with a job analysis. Job-relatedness is the foundation of a defensible program. A documented job analysis establishes which personality dimensions are relevant to effective performance in the specific role, before any scoring or comparison takes place. This is what connects the assessment to business necessity if the program is ever challenged.

Require reliability and validity evidence. The instrument should demonstrate reliable measurement and validity against job-relevant outcomes, documented in a technical manual. (Our companion articles on reliability and validity set out what adequate evidence looks like.)

Monitor adverse impact on an ongoing basis. Group-level score differences should be analyzed before deployment and then monitored as the tool is used at scale, not checked once and forgotten. The four-fifths (0.80) rule from the Uniform Guidelines is a useful screening heuristic, but adverse impact also depends on statistical significance and the composition of the local applicant pool, so it should be assessed in context rather than treated as a single pass-fail number.

Validate locally where you can. Where sample sizes allow, a local validation study that links assessment scores to performance in your own roles is the strongest form of evidence and is recommended. Where local samples are too small, validity generalization and transportability evidence from the publisher provide a defensible basis, provided the local roles are comparable to those studied.

Document and apply consistently. A defensible process is one that is standardized, applied the same way to every candidate, weighted consistently, and recorded. Consistent documentation is often what distinguishes a defensible program from a vulnerable one.

Keep human judgment in the loop. Scores inform structured discussion and decisions; they should not function as automated, blind cutoffs. This both improves decision quality and reduces the risk of an indefensible, mechanically applied threshold.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Using an unvalidated instrument. Many commercially available personality tools lack published criterion validity evidence, adequate normative data, or adverse impact analyses. Deploying an unvalidated tool exposes the organization to legal challenge and produces data that cannot be relied upon to improve hiring accuracy.

Ignoring adverse impact. Personality assessments should be tested for group-level score differences before deployment. The instrument provider should supply adverse impact analyses, and the organization should run its own analyses when the assessment is deployed at scale. Low adverse impact alongside meaningful validity is the standard to require (Morgeson et al., 2007; Ones et al., 2007).

Treating personality as a personality verdict. A personality profile describes stable behavioral tendencies. It does not determine what a person can learn, how they will develop, or what they are capable of achieving. Personality data is one structured input into a hiring decision, not a definitive verdict on suitability.

How Deeper Signals Supports This Process

The Core Drivers Diagnostic is designed specifically to meet the criteria that make personality assessment defensible for hiring. It is built on the Five Factor Model, normed against 150,000+ working adults globally, and reports reliability coefficients between .68 and .82 across its six scales. Criterion validity has been demonstrated against manager-rated task performance, contextual performance, work engagement, and counterproductive work behaviors. In the adverse impact analyses available, impact ratios sit at or above the four-fifths (0.80) screening threshold across gender, age, and ethnicity, and Deeper Signals supports clients in monitoring impact in their own deployments.

Candidates complete the assessment in under ten minutes and receive a feedback report they can read and act on, giving the hiring organization structured, comparable data while giving candidates a genuinely useful developmental output from the process.

Frequently Asked Questions

At what point in the hiring process should a personality assessment be used?

‍After an initial application screen and before or alongside a structured interview. This placement maximizes the assessment's contribution to the selection decision while preserving candidate experience.

Can personality assessments be used as the sole basis for a hiring decision?

‍No. Personality assessments should be one component of a multi-measure selection process. Using any single instrument as the sole basis for consequential hiring decisions is not advisable.

How do I know whether a personality assessment is valid for my roles?

‍Request the technical manual and verify that it documents criterion validity against job performance outcomes, reliability coefficients above .70, a representative normative sample, and adverse impact analyses. If this documentation is not available, treat the tool's validity as unconfirmed.

How do I use a personality assessment responsibly and defensibly?

‍Follow the established professional standards, which is also what manages legal risk. Start with a job analysis that establishes which traits are relevant to the role, use an instrument with documented reliability and validity, run and monitor adverse impact analysis rather than checking it once, validate locally where your sample sizes allow (and rely on the publisher's validity generalization evidence where they do not), keep the process standardized and documented, and use scores to inform human judgment rather than as automated cutoffs. These steps follow the Uniform Guidelines (EEOC, 1978), the SIOP Principles (2018), and the Standards (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014). Used this way, a validated personality assessment reduces risk by replacing inconsistent interview judgments with a documented, standardized, auditable process. Risk arises from the opposite: unvalidated instruments, no adverse impact analysis, no job analysis, or using personality data as a sole selection criterion.

How should hiring managers be trained to use personality assessment data?

‍Hiring managers should understand what each dimension measures, which dimensions are relevant to the role based on a prior job analysis, how to interpret a continuous score relative to the norm group, and how to use the profile to inform structured interview questions rather than to replace them.

Last reviewed by Dr. Reece Akhtar — June 2026

References

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five-factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30–43.

Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 683–729.

Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 995–1027.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262

Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 639–683.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Seibert, S., Akkermans, J., & Liu, C. H. (2024). Understanding contemporary career success: A critical review. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 509-534.

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2018). Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures (5th ed.). Bowling Green, OH: SIOP.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1978). Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. 29 C.F.R. Part 1607.

‍