How to Read and Interpret Reports

Understanding reports and interpreting scores

Understanding the Reports

Before you attempt to interpret results about a candidate, it is important to understand the ground rules of interpretation, and what the reports do and don’t show.

Our reports are designed to be used by those without any training in psychometrics.

Therefore, all Clevry reports have a page dedicated to ensuring users fully understand the background and purpose of the report, how to correctly interpret the results it presents, the conditions of using the report and where further information can be found about the candidate. The information found on this page is shown below.

 

General:

• Personality and ability are not fixed they may vary over time, change through practice (for ability tests), training and development, or simply vary depending on the situation
• These results must be kept within the boundaries of confidentiality agreed with the candidate
• The results must not be used for any purpose other than that agreed with the candidate
• These results must be kept securely and not retained beyond the period agreed with the candidate
• These test results should be considered along with other information about the candidate before making a selection decision
• Clevry personality and ability tests are very reliable but not infallible

Personality questionnaires:

• There are no rights or wrongs. The scores do not measure ability, skills, capability or competence. They are merely indications of preferences or typical styles of behaviour
• The profile is intended to clarify the candidate’s self-perceptions, it does not provide an objective measure
• For further interpretation of the candidate’s profile, you should seek the advice of a trained Clevry user
  
  

Ability tests:

• A more detailed measure of the candidate’s abilities should be made at a later stage of the selection process using a supervised psychometric test or an equivalent measure of the same ability
• Ability test results can be verified online using the Clevry ability verification facility

These are the key points to remember when interpreting respondent reports, and you must always explain these points to a third party (the candidate or manager) before you describe the results to them.


While all of these reports are designed to be non-qualified and user-friendly, the support of a qualified Clevry Personality Questionnaire (CPQ) user will greatly enhance their power and effectiveness.

 

Scale Interpretation

It is important to be clear on what each scale is measuring before attempting to interpret the score.

Detailed scale descriptions are shown on Clevry when creating your questionnaire, and can also be found in ‘The Science’ section of the Help Centre.

 

Social Desirability Scale

What does this scale measure?

Social desirability is made up of both impression management and self-deception. It is unconscious and linked to self-awareness, and building a favourable self-image.

Special care must be taken when interpreting scores on the social desirability scale (or impression management scale). If the scale indicates a high level of social desirability, we cannot:

• Assume that the respondent has deliberately faked their responses, the respondent may have answered honestly.
• Screen out the candidate as research has shown that for some roles social desirability is positively correlated with job performance e.g. sales roles.
• Adjust scores on other scales as this would be arbitrary, especially since a high social desirability score can arise for several reasons.

If the scale indicates a high level of social desirability, we can:

• Be even more rigorous than usual in collecting concrete evidence to corroborate the information the candidate has self-reported by:
  • Asking probing, concrete, past-tense questions during the subsequent exploration discussion.
  • Comparing the profile with the results of other personality assessments, such as simulation exercises.

We recommend that social desirability scores are not fed-back to candidates (or assessors in the case of an assessment centre) since they are very susceptible to misinterpretation. The social desirability scale is best treated as a guide for interpretation that is for your use only.

 

 

Scoring Interpretation

STEN Scores

An important point to remember with sten scores in general is if there is some accompanying text, make sure to read it carefully as this will shed further insight into what the score means for that specific scale or test.

Personality Questionnaires:

The sten range describes the strength of preference indicated by the candidate’s responses compared to the norm group. The higher or lower the sten score (towards either end of the dichotomy) the stronger the tendency expressed towards the corresponding side of the scale.

• Scores of 5 or 6 indicate that the individual sees themselves as typical in this area compared to others Or the individual’s personality in this area varies a great deal on the situation.
• Scores of 7, 8, 9 and 10 suggest a progressively stronger tendency towards the high end of the scale, with 7 only suggesting a slight tendency.
• Scores of 4, 3, 2 and 1 suggest a progressively stronger tendency towards the low end of the scale, with 4 only suggesting a slight tendency.

Ability tests:

The sten score range indicates how well the candidate performed, compared to the norm group.

• Scores of 1 and 2 indicate a low overall performance.
• Scores of 3 and 4 indicate below-average and slightly below-average performance.
• Scores of 5 and 6 indicate an average performance.
• Scores of 7 and 8 indicate a slightly above average, and well above average performance.
• Scores of 9 and 10 indicate an outstanding performance.

The most important thing to remember when interpreting sten scores is that they represent a candidate’s preferences compared to a norm group. Whether this is a general or specific norm group, may change a candidate’s sten score as they are being compared to a different population of previous candidates. This doesn’t mean their preferences have changed, but simply that when compared to a different group, their traits or ability are more or less common.

When interpreting sten scores, remember to read any accompanying text carefully as it will shed light on what the score means in that particular context.

 

Standard Error of Measurement

The standard error of measurement (SEm) provides an estimate of the margin of error included in scores produced by a scale, as no scale can ever be 100% accurate in reflecting a true score. By taking the potential margin of error into account, we can more accurately interpret sten scores.

A rule of thumb for the CPQ is to allow a margin of 1 sten on either side of the observed sten score. Many CPQ scales have a lower margin of error than this, so making a 1 sten range is a safe convention for accurate interpretation of the instrument

Linking Scales

One way to interpret personality profiles is by reading and thinking about the scales one by one. However, a more sophisticated approach is to consider how a selection of scales might interact and how this will impact the candidate’s behaviour.

For example, if we see an individual with a sten score of 9 on the CPQ scale Direct, we can start to make inferences about how their preference might impact their interpersonal behaviour e.g. likely to be candid when voicing opinions rather than adopting a more cautious approach.

This is interesting on its own, however when we pair it with another scale it can lead to a much richer impression of the person.

For example, if we can also see that this person has a sten score of 2 on the Listening scale, we now also know that they have a strong preference for talking and place less emphasis on making time to listen to others. Depending on the job role, this might be a cause for concern. Whereas, if they had scored an 8 on Listening, we could infer that they see themselves as someone who takes time to consider the opinions of others. So, whilst they are direct when voicing their opinions, they are likely to have taken time to listen to others first.

As you continue to add scores to your thinking or ‘daisy-chain’ the scales you can build up hypotheses about a candidate that you can then ‘check out’ in the exploration discussion. The hypotheses would vary depending on the role but examples could include how the scales interact to impact on customer service style, or project planning etc. This method can take some practice but is a rewarding way to utilise the data.

 

Best Practice

Feedback should be offered to all respondents of the CPQ. The ethical use of personality questionnaires, whether for selection or development, extends to providing feedback on results to all those who want it. For more information on how to conduct an exploration discussion refer to the ’Best Practice’ section of the Help Centre.

 

Corroboration of Results

For both remote and supervised modes of administration (but particularly remote) you should follow up the results of the assessment and corroborate them with further information relating to each respondent’s results.

The most effective and valuable source of corroboration is the feedback discussion. See the Feedback of Results section of this manual for more details. Corroboration of all test-taker's results may not be practical or possible in all assessment scenarios, but no decisions should be based solely on the results of psychometric personality assessment.

 

Last Updated: January 2024