Evidence, published.
Long-form research briefings on the science of talent decisions — what the peer-reviewed literature actually shows, with sources you can hand to your assessment and legal teams.
Read the evidence behind the platform
Every briefing is built from published, citable research — meta-analyses, standards documents and regulatory texts — and closes with what the evidence means for how organizations assess people.
What actually predicts job performance
Meta-analyses spanning a hundred years of selection research agree on something uncomfortable: the methods organizations trust most predict least. The evidence, and the 2022 re-analysis that reordered it.
Personality scienceThe Big Five is not a personality quiz
Type indicators reclassify a large share of retakers within weeks. Trait models replicate across cultures and decades — and predict work outcomes. Why the distinction matters more in hiring than anywhere else.
Personality scienceFive scores hide more than they reveal
Two candidates can post identical Big Five profiles and behave in opposite ways on the job. The bandwidth–fidelity debate, the meta-analytic verdict, and the case for measuring at facet resolution.
MeasurementThe best assessments are shorter
Computerized adaptive testing reaches fixed-form precision with roughly half the items, holds precision constant across the ability range, and starves cheating economies of a stable answer key. The psychometrics, explained.
Economics of hiringThe money math of better hiring
A formula published in 1949 converts assessment validity into currency — and it has survived every honest attack on its assumptions. The math, the caveats, and why selection quality is still systematically underpriced.
Cost of getting it wrongThe true cost of a bad hire
Direct replacement runs about a fifth of salary; fully loaded estimates run to twice it. What a mis-hire really costs, where the money hides, and the selection arithmetic that prices the risk before the offer.
Cost of getting it wrongThe interview illusion
Free-form interviews predict performance at .19 — and in controlled studies they made predictions worse than no interview at all. Why the most trusted method in hiring earns the least trust, and what fixes it.
Cost of getting it wrongRésumés are claims, not evidence
Years of education predict performance at .10, experience at .18 — and identical résumés draw 50% more callbacks with a different name at the top. The case for screening on measurement instead of paper.
Cost of getting it wrongNinety-day failures
Person–job fit correlates −.46 with the intention to quit — and it is measurable before the offer. Why new hires leave early, which signals predict it, and what each preventable exit is worth.
Personality scienceWhat conscientiousness actually buys
It is the trait that generalizes across nearly every job studied — and the enthusiasm around it has outrun the evidence. What it predicts, which facets carry the weight, and why grit is largely the same construct rebranded.
Personality scienceThe cost of volatility
Neuroticism is the strongest personality correlate of job dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction is where turnover and counterproductive behavior begin. What emotional stability predicts, and where it matters most.
Personality scienceCan candidates fake a personality test?
Applicants do score higher than incumbents, and told to fake, people can. Yet validity survives more of it than the fear suggests. What faking does to your rankings — and the countermeasures that hold up.
Personality scienceInterests are not competence
Interest inventories are the most popular instruments in career guidance and among the weakest in selection. They predict what people choose and stay with far better than how well they do it.
Personality scienceThe dark side of strengths
Most trait–performance relationships are curves, not lines, but hiring treats them as lines and rewards the extremes. Where more stops being better, and how the strength that got someone promoted becomes the flaw that ends it.
Integrity & proctoringWho actually took your test?
In recent samples, nearly 16% of students admit to paying someone to do their work — and a 10% cheating rate can capture a third of your top-decile slots. The fraud vectors in remote hiring, and the integrity stack that closes them.
This series is ongoing — upcoming briefings cover integrity & proctoring · fairness & compliance · applied playbooks for campus, interviews and technical hiring.
Evidence over intuition, on your next hire.
A 30-minute walkthrough of 5Profiler with your roles, not a canned deck — and a sample report to keep.