Are Personality Tests Useful in Hiring

Are personality tests useful in hiring, or are they a costly distraction from the metrics that really predict performance?

Recruiters around the world still spend over £1 billion a year on personality inventories. Yet meta-analyses by Schmidt & Hunter (1998, updated 2016) show that general mental ability combined with work-sample tests out-predict personality by 2–3×.

In this article we unpack the evidence, expose the pitfalls and show how scenario-based assessments give you a clearer line-of-sight to actual job behaviour.

What the Data Says About Personality Tests and Job Performance

Personality scores correlate with supervisory ratings at roughly r = .20-.25 (Barrick & Mount, 2001). That is statistically significant but weaker than the r = .51 achieved by structured interviews or r = .54 for cognitive ability.

Worse, the correlation drops when applicants are coached or “fake-good”. SHRM’s 2022 survey found 38% of candidates admit to distorting answers. A 2020 Hogan Assessment white-paper confirms social-desirability bias can inflate conscientiousness scores by up to 1.3 standard deviations—enough to move an applicant from the 50th to the 90th percentile.

38% of candidates admit to distorting answers on personality inventories.

Despite these modest validities, personality inventories remain popular because they are cheap to scale and legally less controversial than IQ tests. The trade-off is signal quality: you get data, but not necessarily data that improves hiring accuracy.

Hidden Risks: Adverse Impact and Candidate Experience

Adverse Impact

Even “neutral” personality tools can trigger adverse impact. A 2021 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission study found that certain Big-Five profiles skew along gender and ethnic lines. When cut-off scores are applied blindly, organisations can inadvertently screen out protected groups.

In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 requires that any selection method be “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.” Failing to validate your personality inventory on your own employee population puts you at legal risk.

Candidate Experience

Only 29% of job seekers in a 2023 IBM survey felt personality questions were “relevant to the role”. Many report frustration at being asked about abstract preferences (“I enjoy vibrant parties”) when they applied for a data-engineering post.

Poor experience damages employer brand and can increase offer-rejection rates by up to 12%.

Context Is King: Why Situational Judgement Beats Disposition

Human behaviour is not trait-driven alone; it is a function of Trait × Situation. That’s why situational-judgement and scenario-based assessments consistently outperform static personality scales.

A 2019 Harvard Business Review article showed that immersing candidates in realistic work dilemmas raised predictive validity to r = .42 while reducing subgroup differences by 18%.

Instead of asking “How organised are you?”, present a real-world scenario: “You are juggling three client deadlines when a key team member phones in sick—what do you prioritise and why?” The response reveals conscientiousness, collaboration and decision-making without relying on self-report.

Best-Practice Playbook for Recruiters

If you still use personality tests, follow these evidence-based guidelines:

• Combine, don’t rely. Use personality as one data point alongside cognitive ability, structured interviews and work samples.
• Validate locally. Collect performance data and run adverse-impact analyses at least once a year.
• Be transparent. Tell candidates how results will be used and give them feedback—GDPR Article 12 requires it.
• Prefer forced-choice or ipsative formats to reduce faking, but recognise they complicate scoring.
• Keep it short. Drop below 15 minutes to minimise candidate drop-off.

Even better: switch to scenario-based assessments that replicate the decisions the hire will actually make. You gain higher validity, stronger candidate engagement and defensible compliance.

Smarter Alternative: AI-Generated Scenarios Tailored to the Role

Rather than gambling on self-reported traits, leading teams now simulate the job. AI platforms can spin up infinite, role-specific dilemmas—budget overruns, client complaints, sprint replanning—and score responses against competencies validated inside your organisation.

Predictive validity rivals assessment centres at a fraction of the cost and time.

SkillProof generates AI-powered, scenario-based assessments tailored to any role. Try it free.