What Changed in the Second Edition of The Hogan Guide?

What is the short answer for a report reader?

The second edition of The Hogan Guide is presented as an update to interpreting the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI). Hogan’s announcement, “Hogan Releases Second Edition of the Hogan Guide,” says it updates norms and guidance, refreshes scale and subscale explanations, and adds feedback and coaching models. The MIT Press Bookstore listing also describes updated content and interpretation. These are book descriptions, not a detailed change log. For a reader of a work assessment report, three versions must stay distinct. The guide’s edition identifies the reference book. The assessment or scoring version concerns how responses were collected and converted into scores. The norm reference is the comparison group used to interpret a score. A new guide does not establish that an existing report was rescored, that an older report is invalid, or that a score is more accurate for a job. Public descriptions do not show which revision applies to a report. Check the inventory, score and norm version or date, and stated purpose on the report; then ask the provider which explanation is relevant. The guide’s edition alone does not identify the data or scoring behind your result.

Sources: Hogan Releases Second Edition of the Hogan Guide; The Hogan Guide: Interpretation and Use of the Hogan Inventories, MIT Press Bookstore listing

What does Hogan say changed in the 2025 edition?

Hogan's December 2025 announcement describes the second edition as a revised guide to the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), the Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI). It reports updated norms and guidance across the three inventories, refreshed interpretation of scales and subscales, new feedback and coaching models, integration of research and assessment-design, scoring, and interpretation work, and a more practitioner-focused reading experience. The MIT Press Bookstore listing confirms the three-inventory scope, updated content and interpretation, and a primer on giving feedback and coaching. For report readers, this supports expecting a revised reference and discussion framework. It does not identify which individual reports use any revision. These announced changes concern different parts of assessment. A norm is a comparison reference used to interpret a score relative to a group. Saying norms were updated signals a change to that comparison context, but the announcement does not name the samples, collection dates, or effects on a particular score. It cannot tell a reader whether an existing report used an earlier or later reference. The report's documentation, or its provider, is needed to establish that provenance. The announcement says interpretive content was refreshed, with clearer explanations and more practical insight into scales and subscales. Interpretation explains what a score is intended to represent and how it may be understood; it is not identical to score calculation. The bookseller likewise says the edition includes information about content and interpretation updates for HPI, HDS, and MVPI. Neither description lists affected scales, compares old and new explanations, or specifies whether scoring rules changed. “Refreshed interpretation” fairly summarizes the claims, but does not prove every report field or interpretation changed. A third category is feedback and coaching: how results are communicated and used in a development conversation. Hogan calls the feedback and coaching models new. The MIT Press Bookstore calls the material a primer on giving feedback and coaching based on results from the three inventories. Together, the descriptions support saying that the edition gives this work explicit attention. They do not show that a model improves measurement, makes a score more accurate, or predicts how someone will act at work. A communication framework can guide discussion without changing the evidence behind a result. The sources differ in emphasis. Hogan highlights integration of recent research and innovations in assessment design, scoring, and interpretation, alongside a more accessible, practitioner-focused reading experience. The bookstore mentions content and interpretation updates and a feedback/coaching primer, without detailing those research or design elements. This need not be a disagreement; a short listing may cover fewer points than an announcement. Neither page, however, provides a technical account of incorporated research, a scale-by-scale change log, or an independent evaluation. Readers should attribute these claims to the publisher rather than treat them as demonstrated improvements in accuracy. In practical terms, the second edition can be approached as a revised reference for interpreting the three inventories and structuring feedback conversations. The descriptions do not establish that a person's responses changed, that an earlier report is invalid, or that a result would be rescored differently under a new procedure. Those questions depend on the assessment and reporting details behind the report, not the edition number of a book consulted later. Before applying a revised explanation, identify the inventory and ask the report provider which assessment, scoring, and norm references generated the result. The public descriptions justify expecting updated guidance; report-specific documentation connects that guidance to an individual score.

Sources: Hogan Releases Second Edition of the Hogan Guide; The Hogan Guide: Interpretation and Use of the Hogan Inventories, MIT Press Bookstore listing

What is genuinely new compared with the first edition?

The accessible records do not support a chapter-by-chapter verdict on what changed. They do show that several subjects associated with the second edition were already part of the first edition’s stated scope. Open Library’s catalog record for the 2007 edition lists scale-by-scale interpretation, interpretation of patterns within and across inventories, feedback, development planning, and coaching. Its description therefore makes it inaccurate to say that the second edition introduced feedback or coaching to the guide for the first time. The record is a catalog summary, however, not a full-text examination; it establishes what the catalog says the first edition covered, not the exact wording or depth of each chapter.

The 2025 description points to revision in treatment and application. The MIT Press Bookstore listing calls the book a completely revised second edition and says it includes information about updates to content and interpretation for the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI). It also describes a primer on giving feedback and coaching based on those inventories. Hogan’s announcement is more specific about the claimed changes: updated norms and guidance across all three inventories, refreshed interpretation with clearer and more practical explanations of scales and subscales, new feedback and coaching models, and integration of recent work in assessment design, scoring, and interpretation. These are publisher-reported features. Neither description provides a scale-by-scale change log, identifies which explanations were replaced, or supplies the underlying research and norm documentation.

There is no necessary contradiction between feedback being present in the first edition and new feedback models appearing in the second. A subject can remain while its framework, examples, or recommended process changes. The 2007 catalog description names fundamentals of delivering feedback and building a development plan; Hogan’s 2025 announcement claims new models for feedback and coaching. That supports a careful distinction: the topic is continuous, while the publisher says some models and interpretive material have been refreshed. It does not establish how extensive the model changes are, whether they replace earlier approaches, or how a practitioner should choose between them.

The records also give different page counts: Open Library lists 333 pages for the 2007 edition, while the bookstore lists 172 pages for the 2025 edition. That is a bibliographic difference, not evidence that the later edition is shorter in substance, more concise, less complete, or better. Page totals can depend on format and production choices, and neither listing provides a comparable contents analysis. Using the counts to infer how much interpretation was removed or added would go beyond the evidence.

The defensible answer, then, is that the second edition appears to refresh an established interpretive and coaching resource. Its stated changes include updated norms, revised scale and subscale guidance, and new feedback/coaching models; its broader subjects overlap with those listed for the first edition. A reader seeking exact novelty would need the full texts of both editions, comparable contents pages, and a documented account of the revised norms, scoring material, and models. The public descriptions reviewed here do not provide that comparison. They justify recognizing a claimed update, but not treating promotional language as a technical audit or assuming every report reader will encounter a changed interpretation.

Sources: The Hogan guide, 2007 edition, Open Library; The Hogan Guide: Interpretation and Use of the Hogan Inventories, MIT Press Bookstore listing; Hogan Releases Second Edition of the Hogan Guide

What does an updated norm change for a percentile?

A norm is the reference distribution used to give a raw score comparative meaning. A percentile states where a score falls relative to that group; it is not the percentage of answers a person got right, the probability they will behave a certain way, or a rating of competence. If the reference distribution changes, a percentile can change even when the person's responses do not. Hogan's announcement for the second edition says norms were updated, but its public description does not identify the samples, collection dates, weighting, or whether a particular report used those norms. The statement describes a change claimed about the guide's material, not enough information to reconstruct an individual's score.

Hogan's current FAQ says percentile scores compare a person with inventory-specific working-adult samples. It reports more than 100,000 working adults for the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) and Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and more than 65,000 for the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI). These are the provider's general descriptions of its norm data. The FAQ does not give collection dates connecting those sample sizes to the second edition's update, or identify the reference used for a particular report. Sample size alone also does not show whether a group fits every interpretation or decision.

That fit matters because the comparison group supplies the meaning of a percentile. Hogan's 2012 Assessment Evaluation Guide says scores mean little without norms and that norms matter only when the comparison group is appropriate. This is historical provider guidance, not documentation of the 2025 revisions. It clarifies the practical question: what reference group answers the question being asked? A reader should know which comparison was selected and why it fits the report's intended use.

Language and geography can complicate comparisons. The 2012 guide describes adapted forms and says cross-cultural interpretation can be delicate; it presents a multilingual norm as one way to compare people across locations on a common metric. Hogan's current FAQ also cautions that translated assessment scores can differ for reasons other than culture. Neither source identifies which language version or norm a reader received, or establishes that all versions are interchangeable. They show why a percentile, separated from its comparison basis, is incomplete information.

For example, imagine the same raw response pattern converted using two different reference distributions. The percentiles might differ while the responses remain unchanged. This illustrates norm-referenced scoring; it is not a claim that Hogan rescored reports for the second edition. Likewise, different percentiles do not by themselves show that a person's tendencies changed. Interpreting a difference requires knowing whether the form, scoring, norm reference, language, or administration changed, and whether the responses changed.

When a report refers to updated norms, ask the provider which reference and date apply, which population it represents, and whether that comparison fits the report's intended use. Without those details, the phrase is useful context but not a complete explanation of the score. It cannot establish that a result is more accurate for a particular job, that an older report is invalid, or that a work decision should change. The guide may explain a revised comparison framework; the report's provenance identifies which framework generated its percentile.

Sources: Personality Assessment FAQs; Assessment Evaluation Guide

Could an edition update change the report itself?

Possibly, but the announcement of a new guide does not establish that an existing report changed. A report is produced through a sequence: a person completes an assessment responses are scored, scores may be interpreted against a norm reference, and report text explains what those results might mean. A later guide can revise that explanation without changing the original responses or report already issued. Conversely, a changed assessment form, scoring rule, norm reference, could make a later report differ. The edition number on a book does not tell a reader which event occurred. Hogan’s “Hogan Releases Second Edition of the Hogan Guide” says the book includes updated norms and guidance, refreshed interpretation, and research related to assessment design and scoring. It does not say that existing reports were recalculated or identify which reports were affected. The actual assessment and report documentation are needed to answer that.

A norm is a reference group used to give a score comparative meaning. A percentile expresses where a score falls relative to that group; it is not a percentage of correct answers or a probability of success. If the same raw score is compared with a different norm, its percentile could change. That is a possible mechanism, not evidence that Hogan recalculated a particular reader’s report for the second edition. In “Personality Assessment FAQs,” Hogan describes percentile scores and working-adult norm samples for the three inventories. Those general statements do not identify the norm used on an individual report or document the specific update announced for the guide. A reader needs the report’s version and norm details.

Hogan’s 2018 explainer, “Does Personality Change? On the Stability of Personality Assessment Scores,” offers historical context on score differences. It separates measurement imprecision, form changes, and norm changes from possible changes in the individual. This provider-authored post explains mechanisms, not the 2025 guide’s technical details or the cause of a later report difference. Its distinctions are more useful here than numerical stability claims, which should not be carried forward as current evidence. Comparisons require understanding both measurements.

Consider a hypothetical comparison: a person’s raw responses and scoring rule stay the same, but a later report uses a different norm. The percentile could shift because the comparison changed, not because the person’s work tendencies changed by the same amount. In another case, the person answers a revised form or responds differently over time; now the raw score, its interpretation, or both may differ. A report narrative might also change because its explanatory language was revised while the score stays constant. These possibilities do not show what happened after this edition. Without report documentation, treating every difference as personal change collapses distinct explanations into one.

Before comparing reports, check whether inventory, form, scoring, norm, language, and report template match. Ask the provider which details changed, whether the earlier score was recalculated, and which edition’s interpretation applies. If that information is unavailable, describe a difference between reports, not proof of a changed personality pattern. Technical documentation showing that a particular score was rescored or that a relevant interpretation changed could alter the conclusion; the public edition announcement alone does not provide that evidence.

Sources: Does Personality Change? On the Stability of Personality Assessment Scores; Hogan Releases Second Edition of the Hogan Guide; Personality Assessment FAQs

Why does the three-inventory scope matter when reading a work report?

The guide’s three-inventory scope matters because “the Hogan update” is too broad a description for interpreting a particular work report. The publisher’s announcement says the second edition updates norms and guidance across all three inventories and refreshes explanations of scales and subscales. The MIT Press Bookstore listing names them as the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI), and says the edition includes information on their content and interpretation updates. Those descriptions establish the breadth of the book’s coverage. They do not establish that every scale, scoring rule, or report narrative changed in the same way. For a reader, the useful first question is therefore not simply whether a report is “old” or “new,” but which inventory and report version it contains. Hogan’s current “Personality Assessment FAQs” notes that a participant may take one inventory or a combination, including HPI, HDS, and MVPI, among other assessments. Its score guidance also discusses the three named inventories together when explaining that there is no single ideal score profile. This is provider guidance about interpreting results in context; it does not map the second edition’s revisions to individual fields in a report. If a report contains more than one inventory, treat each component as a separate object of inquiry: identify its name, the report’s version or date, and the explanation being applied to it. A shared cover or feedback session does not erase those distinctions; the source descriptions do not specify a single combined scoring change. That distinction prevents a broad publication statement from becoming an unsupported personal conclusion. A reader should not assume that a revised guide changed every number, that a given scale was rescored, or that the person’s work tendencies have changed. Nor does the guide’s coverage alone say which report feature an employer, coach, or participant is relying on. The publisher announcement and bookstore description do not provide an inventory-by-inventory change log or identify which scoring and norm references generated a specific result. The proper follow-up is to ask the report provider which inventory the statement concerns, what version and reference were used for that report, and which revised explanation applies to the relevant scale. The exact technical details need to come from documentation for that administration, not from the book’s broad scope statement. The practical rule is simple: locate the inventory name and report version before applying any claim about “the Hogan update.” HPI, HDS, and MVPI are all within the guide’s stated coverage, but the available descriptions do not show that their revisions were identical or that a reader’s report changed. That leaves a narrower, answerable question for the provider: what, if anything, changed in the interpretation of this particular result? Until that link is documented, read the second edition as a revised resource for understanding the inventories, not as evidence that every part of an existing report has been updated.

Sources: Hogan Releases Second Edition of the Hogan Guide; The Hogan Guide: Interpretation and Use of the Hogan Inventories, MIT Press Bookstore listing; Personality Assessment FAQs

How should a reader use the new feedback and coaching models?

Treat feedback models as ways to discuss assessment information and connect it to examples and development questions, not as proof that an interpretation is true. A useful conversation tests a report statement against concrete situations, exceptions, role demands, and other relevant information. Hogan's December 2025 announcement says the second edition introduces new models for delivering feedback and coaching. This is a publisher's description of the book, not evidence that a model improves score accuracy or predicts performance. Separate three things that can sound interchangeable. A score is the result produced under the assessment's scoring rules. An interpretation gives that score meaning, often by relating it to a scale or reference group. Feedback is the conversation in which someone explains an interpretation and considers how it applies to a question. The announcement promises refreshed explanations of scales and subscales as well as feedback models, but does not identify how a specific report statement should be handled. Ask the practitioner to name the score and inference separately: what does the report directly show, and what conclusion is being drawn? The first edition already included feedback and coaching. Open Library's catalog description of the 2007 edition lists fundamentals of delivering feedback, development planning, coaching, and interpretation within and across inventories. Hogan calls the second edition's models new, so a cautious reading is that it claims a new or expanded way to conduct these conversations, not that feedback itself is new to the guide. The catalog is descriptive metadata, not a full-text comparison; it cannot show exactly which methods changed or whether any approach produces better outcomes. A useful discussion moves from a report statement to observable examples, then tests how far the interpretation can travel. Suppose a statement concerns how someone handles disagreement. A prompt might be: “What recent situation supports this description, and what situation does not?” Make room for a counterexample. This is an illustrative prompt, not a claim about a particular Hogan scale or report field. If an account fits one setting but not another, the difference may point to context or role demands rather than a fixed trait verdict. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing provide a general rule: evidence should support the proposed interpretation and intended use, for the relevant population and context. The standards do not evaluate the Hogan guide or certify a particular report. They clarify why a coaching conversation cannot by itself establish a claim about selection or job performance. Hogan's 2012 Assessment Evaluation Guide also discusses matching comparisons and validation to work-related uses, but it is older provider guidance, not independent confirmation of the new models or proof about an individual result. Use the revised guide as a possible structure for asking better questions: identify the report statement, request the reasoning, compare it with examples and exceptions, and clarify the decision the discussion is meant to inform. Structured feedback can make assumptions visible; clear presentation alone cannot turn an interpretation into fact. The reader should leave with a more precise question to explore, not a verdict about ability or which work to pursue.

Sources: Hogan Releases Second Edition of the Hogan Guide; The Hogan guide, 2007 edition, Open Library; Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing; Assessment Evaluation Guide

What does the edition not prove about your report?

A revised practitioner guide is not evidence that an individual report is more accurate, an older result is invalid, or a score supports hiring, promotion, diagnosis, or another high-stakes conclusion. Those claims require evidence tied to the report’s interpretation, intended population, and proposed decision. Hogan’s December 2025 announcement says the second edition updates norms and guidance, refreshes scale interpretation, and adds feedback and coaching models. These are publisher-reported changes to a guide; the announcement does not show how a particular score should be used or whether an existing report has changed.

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing define validity around evidence supporting a score interpretation for a specified use. It is not a permanent stamp covering every purpose. The Standards say each recommended interpretation for a given use requires validation; documentation should identify the intended population, construct, context, and scoring processes. A guide can help explain an instrument, but its new edition alone cannot show that a score predicts a particular work outcome. The key question is whether evidence supports the inference made from this report, for this population and decision.

The answer also depends on the consequences. In private reflection or coaching, a reader might treat a description as a question: does it fit recent examples, and where does it fail? That makes it a prompt for discussion, not a settled account. In selection or promotion, a score may affect access to an opportunity, so the user should identify the decision the assessment informs and the evidence for that use. A general personality report does not become a clinical assessment because its language sounds psychological; it does not establish a diagnosis.

The Standards assign responsibilities to test users, who should know the evidence for interpretations and uses of scores they rely on. A polished report or updated manual cannot transfer the decision-maker’s responsibility to the publisher. The user should state the claim, relevant evidence, and limits in the actual setting. If the report is used outside the population or context addressed by supporting evidence, the inference needs further justification or should be narrowed.

For occupational evaluations, the American Psychological Association’s Professional Practice Guidelines for Occupationally Mandated Psychological Evaluations provide a bounded example. They address psychologists evaluating suitability, fitness, or eligibility for employment, not every workplace questionnaire or coaching report. In that setting, the guidelines call for clarifying the evaluation’s scope, confidentiality limits, report recipients, and probable uses and outcomes. This is not a universal rule for every personality assessment. It shows why readers should ask who commissioned an assessment, what decision it serves, who will see the result, and what may follow.

There is a reasonable counterpoint: a technical revision could improve an assessment or its interpretation. Hogan says the new edition incorporates research and innovations in assessment design, scoring, and interpretation, alongside updated norms and clearer guidance. Technical documents showing what changed, which populations were studied, and evidence for the proposed use could affect an evaluation of a report. The announcement does not establish improved accuracy, fairness, or decision fitness for every report. That limits what the public description demonstrates; it does not prove the revisions had no value.

Keep three judgments separate: whether the guide’s explanations were revised, whether the assessment or norm reference behind a report changed, and whether the report supports the decision. Hogan reports the first; the report’s version and scoring documentation can help establish the second; evidence for the interpretation and use determines the third. An older report is not invalid simply because a newer guide exists, and the new guide does not independently validate an employment or clinical conclusion. Ask which version and evidence apply, then ask the decision-maker to explain the intended use and limits.

Sources: Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing; Professional Practice Guidelines for Occupationally Mandated Psychological Evaluations; Hogan Releases Second Edition of the Hogan Guide

What should you ask before acting on an older or newer report?

Before acting on an older or newer report, ask the provider to name the inventory, assessment and report versions, norm reference and date, and intended use. Then ask which second-edition change affects the interpretation under discussion. Hogan’s FAQ describes current percentile reporting and working-adult norm references, but it does not identify the reference used for a particular report. The joint Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing make score meaning dependent on its proposed interpretation and use. The guide’s edition number alone cannot establish whether two reports are comparable. With those details clear, ask what the relevant score is meant to describe. Request one recent work example that fits and one that does not. This can make the interpretation more concrete while keeping it a tendency, not a fixed trait or proof of suitability for a job. Finally, ask what the score cannot establish for the decision you face. If the remaining question is how your decision-making or collaboration tendencies appear in daily work, the live Work Pattern Report offers a low-stakes self-reflection. It has no norm, cutoff, type, or job recommendation, and does not replace the Hogan report. The second edition can inform a better discussion; consequential decisions still need evidence suited to their purpose.

Sources: Personality Assessment FAQs; Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

Questions readers ask