What to Ask Before Buying a Personality Assessment for Coaching

What exactly will the assessment measure for my coaching question?

Start with the coaching question, not the name of a personality model. Ask: “What are we trying to understand, and what part of this assessment could help us examine it?” A useful answer should connect an observable concern to a defined attribute or pattern. If the question is about repeatedly delaying a decision when the information is incomplete, a coach might explore how the client approaches ambiguity, but the assessment would still not explain every delayed decision or establish what the person should do.

A construct is an attribute or pattern that cannot be observed directly in the way one sees a meeting or a written plan. A personality measure estimates such a construct from answers or ratings. That is different from measuring a skill, value, current mood, or diagnosis. Ask the provider to explain which kind of claim the report makes, and then ask how that claim connects to the concern you brought to coaching. A label such as “strategic” or “adaptable” is not yet a usable explanation. What behavior would it help you notice? In which situation might the tendency appear? What alternative explanation would the coach consider?

The Institute of Education Sciences describes measurement quality in relation to the target population and purpose. Its report defines validity in terms of whether results serve their intended use and reliability as consistency across applications. It also says consistency is necessary but not sufficient for validity. The report concerns measures used in educational intervention evaluations, not personality products or coaching. The general principle is still useful as a buyer’s question: what inference is being made from this score, for whom, and for what decision?

A provider’s answer should be more precise than “the assessment reveals your natural style.” Ask what it can contribute to your question. If it measures broad self-reported tendencies, its role may be to suggest a hypothesis for discussion—not to record what you did in a particular meeting, explain every setting, or recommend a job. Test the interpretation against a recent example from your own work. Before booking, ask the coach to restate your question in language you would use yourself. If the proposed construct cannot be linked to an example or a decision you want to examine, the assessment may be answering a different question from the one that brought you to coaching.

Sources: Compendium of Student, Teacher, and Classroom Measures Used in NCEE Evaluations of Educational Interventions, Volume I; ITC Guidelines on Test Use, version 1.2; The Convergent Validity between Self and Observer Ratings of Personality: A Meta-analytic Review; 5 Essential Questions to Consider When Using Assessments

What evidence fits this instrument and this use?

Request the exact instrument name and version, a technical manual or report, and the studies that support the proposed interpretation. Then ask whether the evidence concerns coaching or a different use. A tool studied for one purpose does not automatically support every claim a coach might make from its results. The International Test Commission’s test-use guidelines ask users to consider reliability and validity evidence for relevant populations and the intended use; they also say the evidence should be reconsidered when the purpose changes. The guidelines are professional guidance, not product-specific proof.

Reliability means consistency in results under specified conditions. Validity concerns whether evidence supports a particular interpretation and use. These answer different questions. A report may show consistent scoring while leaving unresolved whether a particular narrative follows from the score or whether that narrative helps a coaching client. Ask what the reported reliability estimate describes, how it was obtained, and what kinds of interpretations the validation evidence supports. A single impressive coefficient, without its method and context, is not a general certificate of accuracy.

Ask who was studied. Were participants similar in language, age, work context, or other relevant features to the people for whom the coach intends to use the results? Which version was evaluated? Was the evidence produced by independent researchers, by the test developer, or both? Developer research can be useful, but the source and method should be visible. The International Test Commission’s guidance includes the relevance of norms, the characteristics of the test takers, and the purpose as considerations in choosing and using a test.

Suppose a provider has documentation for leadership development but proposes using the same profile to explain conflict at home. The document may still prompt a useful discussion, but the coach should distinguish what the evidence supports from a new inference. Ask which parts are documented, which are hypotheses, and what the coach adds. A candid limitation is more informative than a promise of universal accuracy. You can also ask whether the provider publishes a technical manual and whether the coach has training in administering and explaining this particular instrument. These questions do not require you to audit the research independently; they help distinguish a documented tool and qualified interpretation from an unexplained label.

Sources: Compendium of Student, Teacher, and Classroom Measures Used in NCEE Evaluations of Educational Interventions, Volume I; ITC Guidelines on Test Use, version 1.2; The Convergent Validity between Self and Observer Ratings of Personality: A Meta-analytic Review

What does the score compare me with, and how uncertain is it?

Ask what the report’s numbers mean before interpreting them. Some reports present a raw score, some transform scores against a reference group, and some use descriptive categories without a published comparison. A percentile, when used, indicates a person’s relative position in a defined reference group. It does not say that a person possesses a trait to that percentage. A label such as “high” or “low” also needs a stated comparison and a reason that the distinction matters to the coaching question.

Ask for the reference group’s description, the date or version of relevant norms, and any limitations involving language or context. A norm group is the group used to interpret relative standing. If the report says “above average” but does not identify the comparison group, you cannot tell what “average” means. Even a well-described group may not match your circumstances. The ITC guidelines advise against drawing invalid conclusions from comparisons with norms that are outdated or not relevant to the people being assessed.

Then ask how much precision the score supports. A difference between two nearby numbers may look decisive on a chart but may not support a meaningful distinction. Request the provider’s explanation of measurement error or score bands, if applicable, and ask whether the narrative changes when a score shifts slightly. Do not assume that every product provides a standard error or that a particular numerical threshold is universal. The buyer’s goal is to learn what the provider can responsibly say about the score’s precision.

A hypothetical report places a response pattern above a reference group. That could prompt a discussion of whether the person often seeks detail before acting. It cannot establish that the person is “too cautious,” that the pattern appears everywhere, or that a small gap between scales matters. The coach can examine a recent decision, its context, and what happened next. This example is illustrative, not a result from a real assessment. For comparisons, ask whether the score is meant to describe a relative standing or whether the provider uses a criterion tied to a defined behavior. Those are different interpretations. A report should identify which one it uses, and the coach should explain whether it is relevant to the decision you are considering.

Sources: Compendium of Student, Teacher, and Classroom Measures Used in NCEE Evaluations of Educational Interventions, Volume I; ITC Guidelines on Test Use, version 1.2

How will the coach handle a result that does not fit?

Ask whether you can question, contextualize, or reject an interpretation, and what the coach will do if the report does not resemble your experience. A self-report captures how you answered particular questions under particular conditions. It is not direct observation of every behavior or setting. Disagreement can be useful information: perhaps the wording was unclear, a tendency is context-dependent, or the coach has drawn too broad a conclusion. The response should be inquiry rather than insistence that the score knows you better than you do.

A meta-analysis by Connolly, Kavanagh, and Viswesvaran examined self and observer ratings of the Big Five across multiple studies. The accessible abstract reports dimension-specific sample sizes ranging from 5,333 to 8,000 and corrected mean correlations of .46 to .62 across the five dimensions, with substantial unique variance in both perspectives. Acquaintance duration moderated convergence. These pooled ratings represent the populations and settings in the included studies; they are not a sample of coaching clients, and the review does not establish that every coaching client needs an observer rating, that another person is more accurate, or that a particular commercial test will produce the same pattern. The practical point is limited: self and observer views can overlap while still differing, so a mismatch merits discussion rather than automatic deference to either source.

A coach can make mismatch productive without adding another assessment. Identify the specific theme that seems wrong. Recall a recent situation in which the supposed tendency might have appeared, then consider a counterexample. Was the behavior different with a trusted colleague than with a new group? Did a deadline, unclear authority, or lack of information shape the choice? What would you observe next time if the interpretation were partly right? The report offers one possible lens; the client’s examples and the context help determine whether that lens is useful.

Ask in advance how the coach responds when you disagree. The ITC guidelines call for clear, accurate communication and caution against unsupported conclusions. In practice, the coach should let you correct factual errors and treat an interpretation as revisable. A useful discussion can explore a surprising result without either dismissing it automatically or treating it as a complete description. If observer input is proposed, ask who would be invited, what they would be asked, and whether you can review how their information is used. The meta-analysis concerns average patterns across studies; it cannot tell you whether a particular colleague’s account is fair, informed, or appropriate to share.

Sources: The Convergent Validity between Self and Observer Ratings of Personality: A Meta-analytic Review; ITC Guidelines on Test Use, version 1.2

What will happen after the feedback session?

Ask the coach to describe the steps from score to action. Which finding might shape a coaching goal? What behavior could you observe? When will you review it? What happens if the report’s suggestion is not useful? A feedback session can provide language for a recurring experience, but the report alone does not show that anything has changed. The value depends partly on how the interpretation enters the coaching work and whether the client can test it against experience.

The evidence reviewed here does not establish that buying a personality report is needed for coaching. The ITC guidelines focus on how a test is selected, interpreted, and used; they do not claim that adding a test improves coaching outcomes. This distinction matters when a provider moves from evidence that a measure describes a tendency to the stronger promise that the report itself will make coaching more effective. Ask for evidence supporting that added claim, and keep the coaching question separate from the quality of the instrument.

A pilot randomized trial offers a process example, but only within a specific clinical setting. It enrolled 30 patients in one residential substance-use treatment program and allocated 17 to patient-centered personality feedback and 13 to control. The assessment used the NEO PI-R; participants in the feedback group helped define questions and discuss whether findings fit their treatment experiences. The authors reported satisfaction with the feedback and some differences in treatment engagement at one month, while the longer-stay effect was not statistically significant. This small trial in residential clinical treatment, with its intervention and population, cannot establish that a paid personality assessment improves commercial workplace coaching. It supports asking whether feedback is collaborative; it does not show that a report alone produces change.

For example, if a report tentatively suggests preparing before ambiguous assignments, the coach and client could try a short planning routine before one upcoming task, note the time spent and information available, then review whether it helped. This is a hypothetical experiment, not a guaranteed intervention. The observation may support, complicate, or fail to clarify the suggestion. A useful review date and observation should be agreed before the experiment begins. For instance, decide whether the question is preparation time, missed information, or confidence in starting; changing the measure after seeing the outcome can make a weak interpretation seem confirmed.

Sources: Patient-centered feedback on the results of personality testing increases early engagement in residential substance use disorder treatment: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Who will see my answers and report?

Before completing the questionnaire, ask who can access your raw answers, score, and written report. Clarify whether the coach, assessment provider, employer, sponsor, or another party receives any part of the information. Ask how long it is retained, how it is protected, and whether it can be used for another purpose. Get the terms in writing before you provide responses, especially if an employer is paying for the coaching.

There may be separate privacy arrangements for the coaching relationship and the assessment platform. A coach’s confidentiality commitment does not by itself explain what the software provider stores or what an organizational sponsor receives. The International Test Commission guidelines discuss protecting test data, limiting access to those with a right of access, and setting retention periods. The International Coaching Federation’s current code asks ICF professionals to agree on roles and confidentiality before coaching and to clarify how information is exchanged among parties. These are professional guidelines for their respective communities, not universal legal rules for every coach or vendor.

Ask a sponsor-related question directly: “Will my employer receive my individual report, a summary, or only confirmation that the assessment was completed?” Then ask whether the results could influence performance management, promotion, or another employment decision. A tool offered for reflection can feel very different when the client does not know who will see the result. Technical evidence about score quality cannot answer this separate question about access and downstream use.

Ask what happens if you decline to share the report or later request deletion. The answer may depend on the contract, provider policy, and applicable law; get the relevant terms rather than relying on a verbal assurance. If access, retention, or secondary use remains unclear, delay the assessment, request narrower sharing, or continue without it. If an employer or sponsor is involved, distinguish an individual report from a group summary and ask whether small-group reporting could identify you indirectly. Do not assume that a promise of confidentiality answers every platform or sponsor question; ask which agreement covers each recipient.

Sources: ITC Guidelines on Test Use, version 1.2; ICF Code of Ethics

When is an assessment worth paying for?

An assessment is more defensible when it addresses a specific coaching question, the coach can explain the measure and relevant evidence, score uncertainty is handled plainly, the client can disagree, privacy terms are clear, and the package includes a way to apply and review the insight. It is less compelling when the question is still broad, the provider cannot share documentation, the result is framed as a fixed identity, or the client and coach can make progress with examples and goals alone.

Compare the two options on the same criteria. Assessment-supported coaching can add a structured set of prompts and shared terms; it also adds cost, response data, and the risk that a vivid score will be overinterpreted. Goal-led coaching without a formal personality test begins with what the client wants to change, situations where the issue occurs, and evidence of progress. It can be more proportionate when the concern is already concrete. It may lack the assessment’s structured vocabulary, but a vocabulary is useful only if it improves the conversation.

| Decision criterion | Assessment as one coaching input | Goal-led coaching without a test | | --- | --- | --- | | Question fit | Adds a structured prompt if the measure maps to the client’s question | Starts directly from the question and examples | | Evidence | Requires documentation for the intended interpretation and population | Requires a clear goal and a credible way to observe progress | | Uncertainty | Scores and comparison groups need explanation | Interpretations still need checking against context | | Follow-through | Findings should inform a revisable action | Can move directly to an experiment or feedback conversation | | Privacy | Adds data whose access and retention need clarity | Avoids assessment data; coaching records still need clear terms |

This is a decision aid, not a ranking of named products. The International Test Commission says users should consider factors such as relevant evidence, appropriateness for the population and purpose, fairness, practicality, time, and cost. Hogan Assessments’ own 2010 buyer guidance, written for employee selection and leadership development, similarly recommends asking about intended purpose, technical reports, validation evidence, and how the provider evaluates a test. Because Hogan is a provider and the article addresses organizational buyers, treat it as an example of the questions a vendor recommends, not independent evidence that a particular assessment works in coaching. Include the full price and any separate fee for interpretation or follow-up in the comparison. A low-cost questionnaire may lead to a more expensive debrief, while a coaching package may include discussion regardless of whether you complete an assessment. Compare the complete service you would actually buy, not only the test fee.

Sources: Compendium of Student, Teacher, and Classroom Measures Used in NCEE Evaluations of Educational Interventions, Volume I; ITC Guidelines on Test Use, version 1.2; The Convergent Validity between Self and Observer Ratings of Personality: A Meta-analytic Review; Patient-centered feedback on the results of personality testing increases early engagement in residential substance use disorder treatment: a pilot randomized controlled trial; 12 Questions to Ask When Choosing a Personality Assessment

What should I ask before I commit?

Use these six questions before paying: 1. What specific coaching question will this assessment help us examine? 2. What does the named instrument and version measure, and what does it not measure? 3. What evidence supports the interpretation for this purpose and a relevant population? 4. What do the scores compare me with, and what uncertainty or measurement error should I keep in mind? 5. How will we handle a result that does not fit my experience? 6. Who receives or retains my answers and report, and what will we do with the findings after feedback?

Ask the coach to answer with a document or concrete example where possible. Request the instrument name, evidence summary, sample report or interpretation guide, privacy terms, and feedback plan. A refusal to share proprietary test items differs from a refusal to identify the instrument or explain its evidence; the latter leaves you without a basis for evaluating the proposed use.

Proceed if the coach connects the tool to your question, explains the evidence and score limits, invites correction, clarifies information handling, and identifies an observable follow-up. If an element is missing, ask for it, narrow the proposed use to low-stakes reflection, or choose coaching without a test. Your decision can be conditional; it need not depend on certainty.

If your remaining question is about your own recurring decisions, collaboration, or friction at work, the publication’s [Work Pattern Report](/assessment) offers a private, low-stakes self-reflection route. It is a non-validated self-report with no norms or cutoffs, and it is not validated for employment decisions. Use it to generate observations for reflection, not as a substitute for the instrument documentation you are considering. Before buying any assessment, ask for the evidence and terms first; then decide whether its structure earns a place in your coaching.

Sources: Compendium of Student, Teacher, and Classroom Measures Used in NCEE Evaluations of Educational Interventions, Volume I; ITC Guidelines on Test Use, version 1.2; ICF Code of Ethics

Questions readers ask