Assessment evidence and interpretation
Explore the design standards behind MySkillsProfile assessments, their independent reviews and the technical documentation for all 11 tests. Use the guidance below to evaluate the evidence and apply results responsibly.
The European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA) Review Model provides a structured framework for describing and evaluating psychological tests. It covers areas such as test documentation, materials, norms, reliability and validity.
All MySkillsProfile tests have been designed to meet the standards of the EFPA Review Model. The model provides a common framework for developing assessments and documenting the evidence that supports their interpretation and use.
The individual user manuals describe each assessment’s framework, development and supporting evidence.
Independent reviews provide an additional perspective on a test’s documentation and technical quality. They complement the user manual and help practitioners make informed choices about assessment.
The British Psychological Society’s Psychological Testing Centre provides independent reviews of psychological tests, alongside resources on standards and test use. These reviews are distinct from professional qualifications held by test users.
The Buros Center for Testing publishes expert, independent test reviews through its Mental Measurements Yearbook series and Test Reviews Online. The reviews provide evaluative information to support informed test selection.
Access the full technical and interpretation information for each instrument. Sample reports and preparation guides are available on the corresponding assessment pages.
When reading a user manual or independent review, consider four areas: the assessment format, its comparison group, score reliability and evidence supporting the intended use.
Norms show how a person’s scores compare with a defined group. Check its size, recruitment method, demographics, geography and collection dates. A large international sample is not automatically representative of your workforce or candidate population.
Reliability concerns consistency. Internal-consistency coefficients such as Cronbach’s alpha describe relationships among items in a scale; they do not establish stability over time or predictive accuracy. Consider the individual scales and any reported error estimates.
Validity evidence supports particular interpretations and uses. Review the methods, samples, comparison measures and outcomes studied. A correlation with self-rated performance differs from evidence using independently observed performance.
Self-report questionnaires reflect how participants describe themselves. A 360 degree survey adds other people’s perceptions. Neither is the same as demonstrating ability on a performance task, and each requires interpretation in context.
Before participants begin, explain why the assessment is being used, how the results will inform decisions or development, and who will receive the report.
For selection and promotion, consider structured interviews, work samples and other job-relevant information. Avoid relying on a questionnaire score as the sole basis for a decision.
Discuss the profile with the participant, ask for concrete examples and consider measurement error and response style. Use development feedback to agree practical actions and a review date.
Consider language, accessibility and whether the comparison group and evidence fit the intended population. Arrange appropriate support and consider how changes to administration may affect interpretation.
Manage reports and comments carefully. Before using an external AI tool, consider permission and remove unnecessary identifying information. Check its output against the report; AI does not create new validity evidence or replace professional judgment.
Tell us who the assessment is for, how you plan to use it and what guidance you need.
Discuss Assessment Choice and Use