Can I Request My Raw Personality Assessment Data?

Can I request my raw personality assessment data?

Often you can request personal information connected with an assessment, but whether that includes item-level answers, scores, or other records depends on the law that applies and which organisation holds them. The phrase ‘raw data’ is imprecise: it might mean your answers, a score calculated from them, or records explaining how a result was reported or used. Name the assessment, approximate date, and records you want, and say what you are trying to clarify. A request for your information does not automatically entitle you to secure test questions, scoring keys, manuals, or source code. The American Psychological Association’s *Disclosure of Test Data and Test Materials: Just the FAQs* distinguishes test data, which can include results, raw data, reports, and scale scores, from test materials such as protocols, manuals, items, keys, and algorithms. It says what may be released depends on context and purpose, professional judgment, policies, laws, and court orders. This is professional guidance, not a universal access rule. As one jurisdiction-specific example, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office explains that the UK right of access covers a copy of a person’s personal information and supplementary information about its processing. That does not establish what another country requires or whether a particular record is held or covered by a right. The answer is conditional: request the personal records that would resolve your question, then distinguish any withheld test materials from information about your result. First identify the records and likely holder.

Sources: Disclosure of Test Data and Test Materials: Just the FAQs; What is the right of access?

What do ‘raw data’ and ‘test materials’ mean?

“Raw data” can mean several things in a personality assessment. Separate what was recorded about your responses from what was calculated from them, how those calculations were compared or interpreted, and the materials used to administer or score the test. Not every assessment creates every layer, so name the record you want. An item response is the answer recorded for one question, such as selecting “agree” on a rating scale. A raw score is an initial total or value derived from responses before interpretation against a comparison group. A provider might retain responses, a total, both, or another format, so ask what response-level and score-level information exists. A calculated score results from applying a scoring rule to recorded answers. A rule might combine answers or calculate separate scales; these are possible operations, not claims about a specific instrument. The score is a transformation of the answers. Some assessments produce multiple values; others may provide only a summary. This distinction matters when checking whether an answer was recorded correctly or asking how a displayed value was produced. A standardized score expresses a result on a scale intended for comparison with a specified reference distribution. A percentile describes a position within that comparison group: broadly, the share of the reference group scoring at or below a point, subject to the instrument’s method and rounding. Neither is interchangeable with the original response total. The College of Alberta Psychologists’ *Practice Guideline – Psychological Assessment and Testing* distinguishes raw scores from derived scores such as standard scores and percentiles. It concerns psychologists’ practice in Alberta, not universal access rights or every online quiz. A report interpretation is an explanation attached to a score, such as a band label or narrative about what a result may suggest. It connects a number to a description, sometimes with context or qualifications. “High” is not itself the response record or raw total. To understand the label, a reader may need the scoring output, the comparison group if one was used, and the rule for assigning the band. A professional narrative may combine results with other information, rather than transcribe answers. Test materials are the tools or protected content used to administer, score, or interpret an instrument, such as protocols, manuals, scoring keys, or item content. Your answers concern your assessment; an item bank or manual can contain shared test content. The American Psychological Association’s “Disclosure of Test Data and Test Materials: Just the FAQs” distinguishes test data, including results and reports, from materials such as items and algorithms. Its FAQ treats disclosure as contextual and subject to professional judgment, not as a universal legal boundary. The Alberta college guideline illustrates the practical difference in professional testing. It discusses reviewing results with a client, providing a contextual summary, or transferring results and protocols to another provider with the client’s consent, while separately addressing test-material security. This guidance applies to psychologists in its jurisdiction; it does not dictate every provider’s response. “Send me everything” can combine unlike requests. Name the layer you need: recorded answers, score values, comparison information, report interpretation, or materials behind the test. That lets you ask clearly about your assessment record without assuming that a result includes the full test system.

Sources: Disclosure of Test Data and Test Materials: Just the FAQs; Practice Guideline – Psychological Assessment and Testing

Who should receive the request?

Start with the organisation named in the assessment’s privacy notice as responsible for using your information, then ask each organisation about the records it holds. Different organisations may hold different parts of the record; the privacy notice and actual handling help identify responsibility. In UK data-protection guidance, a controller decides why and how personal information is processed; a processor handles information for a controller. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), in “What is the right of access?”, says controllers must comply with subject access requests and arrange for processors to help retrieve information held on their behalf. Its example concerns an employer using an outside processor for staffing analysis: the employer asks the processor to find a worker’s personal information and responds to the worker. For a workplace assessment, the employer may hold the report it received, notes about its use, or related correspondence, while the vendor may hold submitted answers, account records, or calculated outputs. Ask the employer about information in its employment process and the provider about information in the assessment account. If one organisation says another holds the material, ask which organisation is responsible for responding and whether it can route the request or explain why it does not hold the information you sought. The ICO’s “Subject access request Q and As for employers” says that, in the UK employment context it covers, a worker can make a request verbally or in writing and need not use the phrases “subject access request” or “right of access.” It need only make clear that the worker seeks their own personal information. The ICO also says a worker can send it to any part of the employer, although employers should identify a designated contact or process. These details describe UK guidance, not a universal procedure. An organisation may also need to separate your information from information about other people. The ICO’s “Subject access request Q and As for employers” describes a UK HR-file example in which notes about a worker’s performance were supplied while details about other team members were redacted. Its “What is the right of access?” explains that access concerns the requester’s personal information and that a record can relate to more than one person. The organisation must consider what information relates to you and any applicable exemption. Make the first message easy to route: identify the assessment, approximate date, account or employment process, and record types sought. Send it to the privacy contact or the organisation that appears responsible. If the response points elsewhere, ask which entity holds the remaining records and who is responsible for answering. This turns “who has my raw data?” into a bounded question about particular records and holders, without assuming that one organisation has the entire assessment trail.

Sources: Subject access request Q and As for employers; What is the right of access?

What should a focused request ask for?

Start with your purpose: checking whether an answer was recorded correctly, understanding how a score became a report statement, or finding out how an assessment was used. Then identify the assessment by name if known, its date or approximate period, the account or process, and the organisation you are contacting. These details help distinguish your record from another session or version. You can adapt this wording: “I am requesting access to personal information about me connected with [assessment], completed around [date] through [account, provider, or process]. I am trying to [check my answers / understand my result / understand how the assessment was used]. Please provide the relevant personal records you hold, including [categories].” This is a practical starting point, not a claim that every category must be disclosed. Use the organisation’s designated privacy channel if its notice provides one. The California Department of Justice says covered businesses must designate methods for requests to know and direct consumers to those methods. That California example does not set procedure elsewhere. Choose categories rather than asking for an undefined “raw file.” To check inputs, ask for recorded answers associated with your assessment, if retained and accessible. To reconcile a result, request score outputs and the report version connected with that session, where held. If the report compares you with other people, ask what comparison group and reference date informed the interpretation, if that information is part of your personal information or can be explained. Do not presume every assessment uses norms, stores item-level answers, or creates a separate score file. If your concern is workplace use, name that purpose and ask for relevant information about how your assessment information was used or shared, within the applicable access right. You might ask what assessment information informed the outcome, who received it, and whether it was considered alongside other material. Keep the question tied to your own information and the decision you want to understand. The California Department of Justice describes covered consumers’ rights to ask about specific personal information, sources, purposes, and recipient categories; coverage and exceptions matter. UK Information Commissioner’s Office employment guidance says an employee can make a subject access request without that formal label, while employers consider exemptions and other people’s information case by case. These examples support clear requests, not guaranteed disclosure of every detail. Separate personal records from the test system. The American Psychological Association’s “Disclosure of Test Data and Test Materials: Just the FAQs” distinguishes test data, such as individual results and reports, from test materials such as items, manuals, keys, and algorithms. Its guidance also says context and professional judgment matter. You can ask what information was used and request an explanation of a transformation relevant to your purpose. A request for your information does not automatically entitle you to an item bank, scoring key, formula, or source code. Finally, ask the organisation to identify any relevant category it does not provide and explain why, and to supply accessible portions if possible. This invites a specific response without asserting a universal right to partial disclosure. The ICO’s UK employment guidance describes case-by-case treatment of third-party information, including examples where details about others are removed while the requester’s information is provided. Keep a copy of your request and note what question each category should answer. If you receive a score but not the comparison context you asked about, follow up by asking whether that context exists, what it represents, and why it was omitted.

Sources: Subject access request Q and As for employers; Disclosure of Test Data and Test Materials: Just the FAQs; California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)

Why might a provider supply a summary or professional review?

A psychologist may offer a review or summary to make a score’s context and limits clear. The College of Alberta Psychologists’ Practice Guideline—Psychological Assessment and Testing advises considering test security, a third-party referral source, and the client’s needs. Possible responses include reviewing results, providing a summary without test materials, or, with consent, sending results and protocols to another provider. These are options in Alberta professional guidance, not a universal rule. The guideline says psychologists should generally disclose interpreted findings and test data to clients, while refraining from releasing test materials except to another psychologist unless law requires otherwise. A score discussion, personal data, and a protocol are different requests.

There is a practical reason to keep those layers separate. An answer sheet or raw score alone may not show how a measure was administered, which scoring steps were applied, or what the score can support. A review can connect a result to the referral question and explain limits; a summary can communicate findings without reproducing protected items. The Alberta guideline treats interpretation as professional work involving context and judgment, and describes duties to protect standardized tests. The American Psychological Association’s Disclosure of Test Data and Test Materials: Just the FAQs distinguishes data, such as results and reports, from materials, such as items and algorithms. It says disclosure depends on context and professional judgment. Neither source establishes that every answer will be misunderstood or that withholding always protects a test. They support a narrower point: results and secure materials can warrant different handling.

That concern does not, by itself, decide a legal access request. The Alberta guideline directs psychologists to consider relevant law; it is Alberta practice guidance, not a substitute for the law governing a record holder. In another legal setting, the Court of Justice of the European Union’s summary of C-203/22 addresses information about logic in the GDPR context of automated decisions, including profiling. It says an intelligible explanation of the procedure and principles applied may be required; claimed trade secrets call for balancing by a competent authority or court. The ruling does not make every personality assessment an automated decision or require source code. Neither a blanket appeal to proprietary material nor a demand for the whole test system settles the question.

If a provider proposes a summary or conversation, compare it with your purpose. To understand a label, ask how the result was interpreted and what context is missing. To check an answer or correct an error, ask whether the relevant record can be supplied or reviewed, and what concern limits access. If another qualified professional is helping, ask whether a transfer is possible with your consent. If a summary does not answer your question, ask separately for remaining personal information or explanation under applicable law. A test-security concern deserves consideration; alone, it does not prove no access right exists.

Sources: Practice Guideline – Psychological Assessment and Testing; Disclosure of Test Data and Test Materials: Just the FAQs; Court of Justice of the European Union judgment summary (C-203/22, 27 February 2025)

How does jurisdiction change the answer?

There is no global answer or universal deadline. Access depends on the law that applies, the organisation responsible for the information, and any relevant exception. Check the privacy notice and the relevant regulator’s current guidance before relying on a deadline. In the United Kingdom, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) describes a right of access under UK GDPR. A person may obtain a copy of personal information and supplementary details about its processing, such as purposes, categories, recipients, retention, and, where applicable, information about automated decision-making. The right concerns the requester’s own information; another person’s information may require separate consideration. The ICO identifies the controller as responsible for responding, even if a processor holds information on its behalf. It does not mean every test artifact must be disclosed in full. (See “What is the right of access?”) The ICO’s response guidance says a controller must respond without undue delay and ordinarily within one month of receipt. It may extend the period by up to two further months when a request is complex or there are multiple requests, but must notify the requester within the initial month and explain why. The guidance also describes limited circumstances for identity checks and clarification. The one-month period is a UK example, not a universal deadline. Its calculation depends on the guidance’s conditions, including any applicable extension and requested identity information. (See “What should we consider when responding to a request?”) California offers a different example. The California Department of Justice says California residents may ask covered businesses for categories or specific pieces of personal information collected, its source categories, purposes, and categories of third parties receiving it. The CCPA page says a business generally has 45 calendar days to respond and may extend that period by another 45 days if it notifies the consumer. It also explains that the law applies to for-profit businesses doing business in California that meet specified criteria, and that exceptions exist. An online presence alone does not show that a provider meets those criteria. These California-specific rights do not guarantee access to a complete testing system and do not apply to every provider. (See “California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).”) The GDPR is also a defined framework, not a worldwide rule attached to every personality test. The Court of Justice of the European Union’s summary of C-203/22 concerns access in an automated decision-making context, including profiling. Its interpretation addresses meaningful information about the logic involved and an intelligible account of the procedure and principles actually applied. This matters when processing falls within the relevant GDPR provisions; it does not establish that every personality report triggers them or that source code must be disclosed. Treat the ruling within its legal context, not as a general test-disclosure rule. (See “Court of Justice of the European Union judgment summary (C-203/22, 27 February 2025).”) Before sending a request, note where you live, whether the assessment was personal, clinical, or workplace-related, and which organisation processed the information. Read the privacy notice for the named controller, contact, purposes, and access route. Then check the applicable regulator’s current guidance for deadlines and exceptions. If one organisation says another holds the records, ask who is responsible for responding. This cannot determine whether a particular reply is legally sufficient, but it helps prevent applying a deadline or access right from the wrong jurisdiction.

Sources: What is the right of access?; What should we consider when responding to a request?; California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA); Court of Justice of the European Union judgment summary (C-203/22, 27 February 2025)

When does a request need an explanation of how a result was used?

An explanation of how an assessment result was used matters when it formed part of a consequential automated decision or profile and the governing law provides for an explanation. A generated report is distinct from using a profile to shape a decision. To understand an outcome, ask for personal records and the assessment’s role in reaching it. In Case C-203/22, the Court of Justice of the European Union considered an automated creditworthiness profile used in connection with a mobile telephone contract. It interpreted Article 15(1)(h) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), in the context of automated decision-making including profiling under Article 22(1). The court said meaningful information about the logic involved can require a concise, intelligible explanation of the procedure and principles applied to use a person’s data to reach a specific result. The judgment concerns that GDPR context; it does not establish that every personality report requires a detailed account of its scoring method. [The Court’s judgment in Case C-203/22](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62022CJ0203) explains that handing over a complex formula or every technical step would not necessarily be meaningful. If an assessment may have influenced a workplace outcome, identify the decision and assessment you believe was considered. Ask which personal data were used, how they contributed, and what role the assessment played. If other information or human judgment mattered, ask how the result related to those factors. This seeks an account of use, not the scoring system. It avoids assuming the assessment caused the outcome: a decision-maker may have relied on several inputs or treated the report as background. The court’s reasoning marks a boundary between explanation and source-code disclosure. It does not establish a right to a provider’s full algorithm or proprietary formula. But complexity alone does not excuse failing to explain the procedure and principles applied. Invoking trade secrets also does not automatically end scrutiny in the judgment’s framework. If a controller considers requested information protected by trade secrets or third-party data, the court says it must provide the information to a competent supervisory authority or court to balance interests and determine the extent of access. That safeguard describes this GDPR case, not a universal procedure. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance “Subject access request Q and As for employers” says exemptions should be applied case by case and justified. Its pay-rise example describes an employer supplying notes about the worker’s performance while redacting details about colleagues. This shows how a decision record may contain the requester’s and other people’s information. It does not show that an assessment score was used in a particular employment decision. If a response provides a score but leaves its role unclear, follow up: “Was this assessment considered in reaching the decision? If so, what information from it was used, and how did it contribute?” If told it was not considered, keep the response and focus on relevant records. If it was considered, ask for an intelligible account of its role, inputs, and principles applied, under the law governing the organisation. For a significant workplace consequence, use the review or complaint route available in that jurisdiction. The conclusion is limited but useful: where GDPR Article 22’s automated-decision context applies, access may include meaningful information about how personal data were used to obtain a result. A personality report alone does not establish that this context applies or that a score determined a hiring or promotion decision. First find out whether the assessment was used; then request an explanation proportionate to its role.

Sources: Court of Justice of the European Union judgment summary (C-203/22, 27 February 2025); Subject access request Q and As for employers

How should you read the reply?

Compare the reply with the question you sent. Separate recorded answers, calculated values, comparisons with a reference group, narrative interpretation, and records showing how a result was used. Note what arrived, what it means, what remains unexplained, and whether the gap matters. Checking a recorded answer differs from understanding how a “high” label was produced. Consider an illustrative case. A report labels a dimension “high”; the response contains a total score but no explanation. That difference does not by itself show that either document is wrong. The total may be an earlier step, while “high” reflects a later transformation. The records may refer to different versions or dates, or the total may not be the value used for the report. A genuine mismatch is also possible. These are hypotheses to check, not findings about a particular assessment. Match the records to the assessment named in your request. Check the instrument name, version if provided, completion date, and report date. If details differ or are absent, ask which record the reply covers and whether another version or date is held. If the organisation says a record is not held, distinguish that from saying it exists but cannot be disclosed. Is the returned figure a sum of answers, a calculated scale score, or a value already placed on a comparison scale? If the report uses a band or percentile, ask what transformation connects the supplied figure to that label. For a norm comparison, ask which group and reference date were used, if held and shareable. The issue is whether the provider can explain how this figure produced this description. The Alberta College of Psychologists’ *Practice Guideline: Psychological Assessment and Testing* distinguishes scores or protocols from test materials, and describes reviewing results or providing a summary as possible professional responses in Alberta. This Alberta guidance does not settle access rights elsewhere or establish that a summary replaces personal records. If a discussion is offered, ask whether it addresses the information you need. Separate factual correction from disagreement about interpretation. If an answer was recorded incorrectly, identify it and ask about correction. If answers are accurate but the label feels unlike your experience, that is an interpretive question, not proof that scoring is defective. The *Practice Guideline* says reports should state limitations affecting results or opinions; ask what context shapes this interpretation. A reply may disclose some information while withholding other material or removing details about another person. Information Commissioner’s Office guidance for UK employers describes case-by-case consideration of exemptions and third-party information, including examples where the requester’s information is supplied while others’ details are redacted. If something is missing, ask which category was withheld, the reason, and whether an accessible portion or explanation can be supplied. Partial disclosure is not automatically a blanket refusal, and redaction does not show that your score is inaccurate. Make one precise follow-up: name the missing document or explanation, state what you need to understand, and ask for the relevant version, transformation, comparison context, correction route, or account of use. If the reply answers your original question, record that and stop. If a consequential gap remains, ask the responsible organisation to address it, then consider the review route that applies where you are.

Sources: Subject access request Q and As for employers; Disclosure of Test Data and Test Materials: Just the FAQs; Practice Guideline – Psychological Assessment and Testing

What is the next useful step?

Start with the question you need to resolve: an answer-entry error, an unclear score, or how an assessment was used. Note its name and date. Contact the organisation that appears responsible in its privacy notice. If an employer, assessor, or test provider was involved, ask who holds remaining records. Request specific layers that match your purpose: recorded responses if held, score outputs and report versions, and, when relevant, the comparison basis or records showing how the result was used. Keep a copy of your request and reply. If something is missing, follow up with the record you need or ask how a result was produced or used. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office guidance, “Subject access request Q&As for employers,” describes case-by-case handling, including possible redaction of other people’s information. It does not make every record automatically available. If disputed, check the review route for the law and jurisdiction that apply. Use the response to frame a practical conversation, not to treat a score as a diagnosis or job recommendation. Ask what observable work situations fit the pattern and what context could explain a mismatch. For optional, low-stakes reflection, the Work Pattern Report at /assessment covers ten decision-and-collaboration continuums. It has no norm, cutoff, type, or selection score and is not validated for employment decisions. It cannot resolve a data-access request.

Sources: Subject access request Q and As for employers; Disclosure of Test Data and Test Materials: Just the FAQs