Behavioral assessment based on the Big Five (OCEAN) model + Future Skills. Identifies personality tendencies and competencies relevant to the professional context.
Taken from the template itself. Questions with a recorded answer key are left out, so reading this page cannot help anyone pass the test.
As the candidate sees it
Big Five (OCEAN)
Mark the statement that describes you most and the one that describes you least:
20 more questions in the full template.
The science behind the template
The Big Five, or five-factor model, is the most replicated description of personality in psychology. Five broad traits, recovered again and again from how people describe themselves and others, in dozens of languages and cultures: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism, usually read from its positive end as Emotional Stability.
For a hiring team the appeal is practical. Unlike a type test that sorts people into boxes, a Big Five behavioral assessment places each candidate on five continuous scales, and three decades of meta-analyses link some of those scales to how people actually perform, lead and stay in a job. This template puts that model into a short, forced-ranking questionnaire that scores itself and returns a per-trait report to you and to the candidate.
Also searched as
5
personality factors
12
traits in the report
21
forced-ranking questions
12
minutes, estimated
Each factor is a spectrum, not a verdict. A low score is a different working style, not a worse one, and the right end depends on the role. The finding under each factor is one line from the research, with the study it comes from.
In this report: Openness
Curiosity, comfort with ambiguity, appetite for new methods and ideas.
The factor emerges consistently in factor analyses of trait descriptors, which is what made it one of the five in the first place.
Goldberg, 1990In this report: Self-discipline
Organisation, follow-through, reliability with deadlines and detail.
The one factor that predicted job performance across every occupational group in the first large meta-analysis of the model, from professionals to sales to skilled trades.
Barrick & Mount, 1991Energy from people, comfort speaking up, drive toward visible roles.
The strongest and most consistent of the five correlates of leadership emergence and effectiveness, at a corrected correlation of .31 across 78 studies.
Judge et al., 2002Cooperation, trust, willingness to put the team ahead of the argument.
Most useful where work is interpersonal: the same meta-analysis found its relation to performance strongest in jobs that involve helping and cooperating with others.
Barrick & Mount, 1991In this report: Emotional Stability
Steadiness under pressure, recovery after setbacks, even mood.
Neuroticism is the strongest of the five correlates of job satisfaction, at a corrected correlation of -.29: people high on it tend to be less satisfied wherever they work.
Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002Four findings a recruiter should know before reading a profile. None of them says personality alone picks the hire; together they say where it helps and how to combine it.
117 studies
Barrick and Mount pooled 117 studies and found Conscientiousness related to performance in every occupational group, while the other factors mattered for specific kinds of work. It is the study that made the Big Five a hiring tool.
Barrick & Mount, 1991r = .31
Across 78 studies, Extraversion was the personality trait most consistently tied to who emerges as a leader and how effective they are, followed by Conscientiousness and Openness.
Judge et al., 2002Forced choice
Inventories that ask candidates to rank statements, rather than agree with each one, showed higher validity for predicting performance than classic agree/disagree scales, especially for Conscientiousness.
Salgado & Táuriz, 2014r = .42
The most recent re-analysis of selection methods puts structured interviews at the top, at .42, with personality measures lower but adding information with small group differences. Personality works best beside a structured interview, not instead of one.
Sackett et al., 2022Most personality questionnaires ask "how much do you agree" with one statement at a time. Candidates who want the job learn to agree with everything that sounds diligent and sociable, and the profile inflates. This template uses a forced-ranking format: each question shows three statements from three different traits, and the candidate orders them from most like me to least like me. Agreeing with all three is not an option.
A meta-analysis of forced-choice measures in high-stakes settings found they substantially reduce the score inflation seen on agree/disagree scales, and a separate meta-analysis found the format predicts performance at least as well. The trade-off is that scores become ipsative: they describe how a candidate's traits rank against each other, not against other people. The report says so on every page, because it changes how the numbers should be read.
Each trait's points are rescaled to a 0 to 100 score against the minimum and maximum that trait could have earned, then placed in one of five bands. The candidate receives their own report by email the moment they finish, with the full version attached as a PDF, and you see the same twelve traits on the submission.
Most like me
Least like me
Three statements from three traits, dragged into order. The statements themselves stay off this page: which trait each one scores is the answer key.
A 0 to 100 score per trait, in five bands. The band, not the decimal, is what the report explains.
Very low
0 to 20
Low
21 to 40
Average
41 to 60
High
61 to 80
Very high
81 to 100
Big Five
Future skills
The research is clear about where personality data helps and where it is abused. These four rules are built into how the report is written.
Personality predicts less than a structured interview or a work sample and adds most when combined with them. Use the profile to shape interview questions, never to cut a shortlist on its own.
Forced-ranking scores are ipsative. A 70 in Openness says Openness ranks high among this candidate's traits; it does not say they are more open than another candidate with a 60. Never rank candidates by a trait score.
This is a self-report of work-related tendencies, not a psychological test administered by a psychologist, and it diagnoses nothing. The report describes styles and suggests development activities; it never labels a person.
Personality measures show much smaller differences between demographic groups than cognitive tests, which is one reason to include them. Still check your own outcomes by group, and give every candidate the same instrument under the same conditions.
The studies cited on this page, with a link to each record. Titles are given in the language of publication.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509-516.
Hutz, C. S., Nunes, C. H., Silveira, A. D., Serra, J., Anton, M., & Wieczorek, L. S. (1998). O desenvolvimento de marcadores para a avaliação da personalidade no modelo dos Cinco Grandes Fatores. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 11(2), 395-411.
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.
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1-2), 152-194.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530-541.
Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210-221.
Salgado, J. F., & Táuriz, G. (2014). The Five-Factor Model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 3-30.
Cao, M., & Drasgow, F. (2019). Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(11), 1347-1368.
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040-2068.
World Economic Forum (2023). The Future of Jobs Report 2023. World Economic Forum, Geneva.
Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism, remembered by the acronym OCEAN. Neuroticism is often reported from its positive end as Emotional Stability, which is how this template names it. The five were recovered independently by several research groups from the words people use to describe personality, which is why the model is called descriptive rather than theoretical.
For prediction, yes. The Big Five measures continuous traits that meta-analyses link to performance, leadership and satisfaction. The MBTI sorts people into sixteen types, and reviews have found that a large share of people get a different type on retest and that the types do not predict job performance. DISC has a much thinner research base. If the goal is a defensible signal about how someone works, the Big Five is the model with the evidence.
On agree/disagree scales, yes, and they do when the stakes are high. Forced-ranking formats like this one make it much harder, because every question asks the candidate to rank three equally desirable statements rather than endorse all of them. Meta-analytic evidence shows forced-choice measures substantially reduce score inflation in high-stakes settings.
No. This template scores ipsatively: each score describes where a trait sits among that one candidate's traits. Comparing a 70 on one candidate with a 60 on another is not meaningful, and the report says so. Use the profile to understand a person and to plan the interview, and let the interview and work samples do the ranking.
The template is short: twenty-one forced-ranking questions, about twelve minutes. Copying the template and collecting answers is free on every plan, and the per-trait report is produced by the template itself rather than by an AI reviewer, so it does not depend on a paid plan.
Yes. As soon as the candidate submits, they receive an email with their own trait report, written in plain language with the same bands you see, plus the full report as a PDF to keep. A personality assessment that only the employer reads is the kind candidates rightly distrust.
Yes. The questions on this page are the questions a candidate gets. They are not samples written for the site: they come from the template itself, word for word.
Any question with a recorded answer key is left out, so that reading this page cannot help anyone pass. The count of what is missing is shown; the questions themselves appear once you copy the template.
Every template exists in English and Portuguese. The candidate answers in theirs and you read in yours.
Question types are checked against your plan by the database itself, so a template never promises a type your plan cannot run. Building assessments and collecting answers is free; automatic scoring starts on the Starter plan.
Once you copy it, the template is yours: change the wording, drop a question, add your own. None of this is fixed.
Create a free account, copy the template and share the link. The candidate opens it in the browser, with nothing to install.
Copy the template, change what you want, send a link. Assessly marks each answer, scores it and explains the score.
What comes back to you
Forced ranking
Mark the statement that describes you most and the one that describes you least:
Answer
Score
Why this score
The question is real. The answer and the score are drawn as an example of what a review looks like.