Policy — How AssessWiki Reviews Assessments

In short

AssessWiki does not publish numeric ratings. Every library entry follows a fixed structure — what it measures, who it is for, how it works, what evidence supports it, what it cannot tell you, and what to do next — so readers can judge each tool on documented facts rather than our opinion. We do not accept payment for reviews, placement, or inclusion in the editorial library. Separately, Theory Portals are pages run by their authors — clearly labeled, never rated, and never mixed into editorial rankings.

1. How we select assessments for the library

Entries enter the library through three routes:

Published frameworks — The editors select psychological frameworks from published research (Big Five, conflict modes, leadership styles, and others), then file every library entry under the researcher or team behind the theory. Profiles are editorial: referenced, not affiliated.
In-house reflection tools — The FormLM Research Desk builds structured, non-clinical reflection tools for the library. They are labeled as self-built and never borrow an external researcher's name.
Community submissions — Users and developers can submit tools for review. Submissions do not guarantee inclusion.

The bar for inclusion is the same across all three routes: a framework must trace to a published source, and the entry must honestly document its limits.

2. What every entry documents

Rather than scoring tools, every entry in the library carries the same fixed structure — the same sections, in the same order, on every page:

What it measures

The construct in plain language — which dimensions or styles the tool works with, and what it does not cover.

Who it is for

The audience and situation the tool fits — and the situations where it is the wrong tool.

How it works

The method: how many items, how scoring works, what framework the items build on, and whether the item pool is public-domain.

Evidence and sources

The published research behind the framework, with links you can follow yourself. Where the evidence is thin, the entry says so.

What it cannot tell you

A fixed limits section on every entry: these tools support self-reflection and structured thinking — not clinical diagnosis, hiring decisions, or fixed descriptions of a person.

What to do next

Concrete next steps — related entries to combine, questions to think through, or when to seek a qualified professional instead.

In-house reflection tools follow the same structure, with one extra label: they state plainly that they are self-built reflection tools, not adaptations of an external validated instrument.

3. Why we describe instead of score

We do not publish numeric ratings, scores, or tiered rankings for the tools in the library. Three reasons:

A score implies precision we do not have. Independent psychometric review — re-running reliability and validity studies — is the role of a testing review body, not a library that points you to published sources.
Documents beat verdicts. An entry that shows its method, sources, and limits lets you judge the tool for your own situation. A single number would collapse that judgment into our opinion.
Numbers invite gaming. The moment we score tools, "improve your score" becomes a service someone will pay for. Describing structure and sources is harder to sell.

What we do instead is on every page: fixed sections, linked sources, and an explicit limits statement — see section 2.

4. Updates and corrections

When we update — Entries are updated when we find an error, when the evidence behind a framework changes materially, or when a reader reports a problem through contact. We do not promise a fixed re-review cycle.
Visible dates — Each profile page shows its own last-updated date, so you can see how current the text you are reading is.
Retractions — If an entry is found to misstate its sources or limits, it is corrected or removed rather than silently edited.

5. Conflicts of interest

We do not accept payment for reviews, placement, or inclusion in our library.
Assessment delivery on our site is powered by our assessment delivery partner. This is a commercial partnership, disclosed in this policy.
When a partner-powered tool appears in the library, it follows the same entry structure as any other tool. The partnership does not influence editorial coverage.
If a reviewer has a personal or financial relationship with an assessment publisher, they recuse themselves from that review.

6. Theory Portals (author-run pages)

Theory Portals are pages where practicing coaches, trainers, and researchers publish and maintain their own assessments. They are a separate, clearly labeled product — not part of the editorial library described in sections 1–3. The distinction that matters:

	Editorial library	Theory Portal
Reviewed by us	Yes — fixed entry structure	No — author's own content
Rated / ranked	No — described with sources and limits	Never
Who writes it	AssessWiki editors	The author, after claiming the page
Paid placement	Never — not for sale	Featured slots only, always labeled

Clearly labeled everywhere. Every Portal carries a disclosure bar — “Run by [author] · Not editorially reviewed” — that is part of the page frame, not the author's content, so it cannot be removed.
Claiming. A Portal starts as an unclaimed demo built from the author's publicly published work. The author claims it with a one-time token, which transfers ownership of the assessment app. Until then, we do not use the author's photo or speak in their name.
Community demos. For classic public frameworks whose authors are not on our platform, we maintain clearly-labeled concept demo Portals ourselves. They are never presented as author-run pages.
Featured slots are paid — and labeled. An author may pay an annual fee for a featured slot in the Portal directory. This never affects editorial library coverage or inclusion, which remain not for sale. Featured slots are always visually marked.
Same delivery partner. Assessment delivery inside Portals is powered by the same delivery partner disclosed in section 5.
Removal. We remove Portals that impersonate others, plagiarize, or mislead — claimed or not.

7. Corrections and feedback

We welcome corrections from assessment authors, researchers, and users. If you believe a review contains an error, please contact us with:

The specific claim you believe is incorrect.
The source of the correction (published paper, publisher documentation, etc.).
Your affiliation with the assessment (author, publisher, independent researcher).

We review all correction requests and update entries directly — the entry's last-updated date reflects the change.