Usually, no: do not retake a personality assessment simply to obtain a more flattering result. First check what the instrument measures, how you answered, which norm group or comparison standard the report uses, and whether the result is far enough from a category boundary to matter. Retesting can be reasonable when the first administration was compromised, the test's manual supports a retest interval, your circumstances have changed in a way relevant to the construct, or the decision depends on a score whose uncertainty has not been explained. A second attempt is evidence about consistency under two sets of conditions. It is not an automatic correction and it should not be used to shop for a preferred identity.
Start with the result in plain language
A report can feel wrong for at least two different reasons. It may describe a tendency that you do not recognize, or it may describe a pattern you recognize but do not want to see attached to you. Those are different questions. The first asks whether the measurement and interpretation fit the evidence. The second asks how you feel about the description.
Begin by translating the result into a modest statement. Instead of asking, "Am I really low in this trait?" ask, "Does this score suggest that, compared with the report's reference group, I more often endorse or show the behaviors represented by these items?" A trait score is not a moral grade, a permanent label, or a diagnosis. It is a summary produced by a particular instrument, response format, scoring rule, and comparison frame.
Imagine Maria receives a report saying that her score on a broad social-engagement scale is lower than the reference average. She may object because she speaks confidently in meetings. That observation does not automatically disprove the result. The scale might also include preference for frequent social contact, stimulation, or time spent with others. Her meeting behavior is useful context, but it is not the same construct unless the report says it is.
Check how the score was made
Before retaking anything, identify the score type. A raw score is the total produced by the scoring rule. A standardized score expresses a position on a scale transformed by the instrument. A percentile rank describes the percentage of people in the stated comparison group who scored at or below a value. A band such as "average" or "high" is a category created by the report's cut points. These forms are not interchangeable.
Look for the instrument's name, version, date, response instructions, scale definitions, norm group, and report purpose. A norm group is the sample used as the comparison reference. If that group is not described, you cannot tell what "higher" or "lower" means. A percentile also does not mean that the trait is present for that percentage of your life, nor that you performed that percentage correctly.
Next, read the items or scale description where access is permitted. A result can seem inaccurate because the heading is broad while the questions cover a narrower set of behaviors. It can also seem surprising because people answer about their usual behavior, an ideal self, a recent period, or a specified situation. Those instructions change the meaning of the response.
Separate reliability from accuracy
Reliability asks how consistently scores are produced under specified conditions. Test-retest reliability is the relationship between scores from the same assessment on two occasions. Internal consistency asks whether items intended to measure a scale tend to work together. Neither question, by itself, proves that the assessment measures the right construct or supports the conclusion you want to draw.
The distinction matters when a report disappoints you. A highly consistent instrument can consistently measure a narrow or poorly defined construct. Conversely, a modest difference between two administrations does not prove that the first report was false. The difference may reflect ordinary variation in responses, the testing context, or the fact that the construct is not expected to remain identical over time.
An ETS research report illustrates why the instrument matters: in one study of a forced-choice personality computer-adaptive measure, retest estimates differed by dimension and differed from those of Likert-style measures. The study is evidence about those measures and that design, not a universal reliability estimate for every online personality report. This is the level of specificity you should expect from responsible evidence.
Use measurement error before chasing a new score
Measurement error is the expected noise around an observed score. One common summary is the standard error of measurement, or SEM. It estimates the typical spread between an observed score and the corresponding underlying score under the model used. The SEM is not a personal diagnosis and it does not tell you exactly where your score would land on a second attempt.
Read the report for an SEM, confidence interval, reliability estimate, or language such as "precision." If the report gives a range, take that range seriously. A score close to the boundary between two bands may not support a confident statement that you belong in one band rather than the other. A retest can move the observed score across that boundary without representing a meaningful change in the underlying tendency.
Consider an example without assigning invented numbers. If a report labels a scale "average" just below a cut point and "high" just above it, the label may be more unstable than the underlying continuous score. The useful question is not "Which label is the real me?" but "Would the decision I am considering change if the score moved within its stated uncertainty?" ETS explains that reliability and SEM must be interpreted for the same group and sources of error; a coefficient alone cannot answer that question.
Ask whether the first administration was usable
Retesting is most defensible when the first administration did not represent the intended conditions. Examples include misunderstanding the instructions, answering for someone else, rushing through items, losing access before completion, using an unapproved translation, or taking a measure in a setting that made attentive responding impossible. Keep the reason concrete. "I disliked the outcome" describes an emotion, not a testing problem.
If you were distracted or unwell, do not assume a retest will improve the result. Check whether the instrument's documentation addresses interrupted sessions, careless responding, response consistency, missing answers, or accommodations. If it does not, ask the publisher or qualified administrator what a valid repeat administration requires. Do not repeatedly submit attempts until one looks preferable.
For a workplace or coaching assessment, clarify who requested the test, what decision it informs, whether participation is voluntary, and who can see the report. The purpose affects what an interpretation is allowed to support. Professional guidance emphasizes considering the assessment purpose and situational, personal, linguistic, and cultural factors when interpreting results.
Treat practice and changed context as separate issues
Practice effects are changes caused by repeating a task or becoming familiar with its items, format, or expectations. They are especially obvious when a person remembers questions and adjusts answers to produce a desired profile. Repetition can therefore make two results look more similar, or make the second one look more favorable, without showing a genuine change in personality.
Personality scores can also differ because the situation or the response frame differs. A person may answer about their current job on one occasion and their general life on another. A recent conflict, illness, move, relationship change, or sustained role change may influence self-description. That does not make the response meaningless, but it changes the question being answered.
There is no universal waiting period that makes every retest clean. The appropriate interval depends on the construct, the item content, the test manual, the possibility of memory, and whether real change is plausible. Research on personality measurement has stressed that temporal instability can reflect true change or measurement error, so the interval must be meaningful for the assessment's purpose.
Choose the action that matches your purpose
For private self-reflection, a disliked result may be an invitation to inspect examples rather than a reason to seek a different score. Write down two or three recent situations that support the report and two that complicate it. Ask whether the pattern varies by role, setting, or people involved. This turns a label into an observation you can examine.
For coaching or development, discuss the report's intended use and limits with the coach. A report can prompt a conversation about habits, preferences, or goals, but feedback alone is not proof that a change program will improve performance. An APA summary of a rapid evidence assessment reports that the effects of personality-feedback interventions on performance or development remain uncertain and that many studies combined feedback with other interventions.
For hiring, promotion, or another consequential decision, do not use a personal retest to game the process. Ask the organization or qualified test administrator whether retesting is permitted, whether alternate forms exist, how scores are interpreted, and what other evidence is considered. A general personality report should not be treated as a stand-alone verdict about suitability, character, or future conduct.
A practical decision rule for retaking
Retake only when you can answer yes to a useful reason and no to a serious confound. A useful reason might be that the first administration was invalid, the report gives a documented retest procedure, a relevant life context has changed, or the result sits near a decision boundary and the administrator has explained how uncertainty will be handled. A serious confound might be remembered items, deliberate impression management, repeated attempts without a plan, or an instrument with no clear purpose or documentation.
If you do retest, preserve comparability. Use the same named instrument and version unless an administrator directs you to use an alternate form. Follow the same response frame, record the dates and circumstances, and read both reports side by side. Compare broad patterns and confidence information, not just the most flattering label. If the reports differ, ask what sources of variation the manual recognizes before concluding that your personality changed.
If no clear reason supports retesting, stop at the first report and examine its evidence. You can disagree with an interpretation while still learning from the items, the norm reference, and the uncertainty around the score. That is more informative than collecting repeated profiles until one feels comfortable.
Sources and notes
- Retest reliability, APA Dictionary of Psychology
Defines test-retest reliability as consistency between scores across two administrations and links it to stability over time.
- Internal Consistency, Retest Reliability, and their Implications For Personality Scale Validity
Explains why internal consistency and retest reliability answer different questions and why time interval affects interpretation.
- Stability versus change, dependability versus error: Issues in the assessment of personality over time
Discusses how temporal instability in personality measures can reflect genuine change or measurement error and why retest intervals matter.
- APA Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation
Supports interpreting assessments in light of purpose, testing factors, and situational, linguistic, cultural, and personal differences.
- Examination of the Test-Retest Reliability of a Forced-Choice Personality Measure
Reports instrument-specific retest findings and shows that reliability can differ across personality dimensions and response formats.
- Test Reliability - Basic Concepts
Defines reliability, measurement error, and standard error of measurement and explains why reliability concerns score consistency.
- Personality-feedback interventions have ambiguous effects on performance
Summarizes a rapid evidence assessment finding that performance benefits from personality feedback remain uncertain.
- Practice effect, APA Dictionary of Psychology
Defines a practice effect as change or improvement resulting from repetition of task items or activities.
Apply it to your work
Understand how you work before you choose what comes next.
From this guide: After checking purpose, conditions, score precision, and retest rules, either document a justified repeat or keep the result as one limited source of information and move to observable examples.
The Work Pattern Report maps how you decide, plan, collaborate, handle conflict, adapt, and learn across 100 workplace situations. Use the result to ask sharper questions about a role’s demands. It is a private reflection tool, not a job recommendation or hiring score.