Policy — How AssessWiki Reviews Assessments

In short

AssessWiki evaluates each assessment tool against five criteria: theoretical grounding, construct validity, reliability, accessibility, and transparency. Each criterion is scored on a 0–5 scale. Tools must meet a minimum threshold to be listed. We do not accept payment for reviews, ratings, or placement.

1. How we select assessments for review

We proactively monitor the assessment landscape across four sources:

Academic literature — We track peer-reviewed publications in personality, organizational, and educational psychology to identify validated frameworks and their derivative tools.
Professional databases — We scan assessment registries (e.g., PsycTESTS, ETS Test Link) for instruments with published psychometric data.
Market monitoring — We observe new assessment products and apps, prioritizing those with significant user adoption or novel methodology.
Community submissions — Users and developers can submit tools for review. Submissions do not guarantee inclusion or a favorable rating.

2. Evaluation criteria

Each assessment is evaluated on five criteria, scored 0–5:

Theoretical grounding (0–5)

Is the assessment based on a recognized psychological framework? We trace each tool to its originating theory (e.g., Big Five, Holland Codes, attachment theory) and verify that the items and scoring align with the published framework.

5 = Directly derived from peer-validated framework with documented alignment. 0 = No identifiable theoretical basis.

Construct validity (0–5)

Does the assessment measure what it claims to measure? We examine factor structure, convergent validity (correlation with established measures), and discriminant validity (non-correlation with unrelated constructs).

5 = Published independent validation studies. 0 = No validity data available.

Reliability (0–5)

Are results consistent? We look for internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥ 0.70), test-retest reliability (r ≥ 0.70 over 2+ weeks), and inter-rater reliability where applicable.

5 = Multiple published reliability studies with strong results. 0 = No reliability data.

Accessibility (0–5)

Is the tool usable by its intended audience? We assess cost (free/paid/freemium), language availability, device compatibility, time to complete, reading level, and accommodations for disability.

5 = Free, multilingual, responsive, WCAG-compliant, <15 min. 0 = Expensive, single-language, desktop-only, >60 min.

Transparency (0–5)

Does the publisher disclose methodology? We check whether scoring algorithms, norming data, limitations, and conflicts of interest are publicly documented.

5 = Full disclosure of methodology, norms, and limitations. 0 = "Black box" scoring with no published methodology.

3. Overall rating

The five criteria are weighted and combined into an overall score (0–25), which maps to a rating tier:

Score	Rating	Meaning
22–25	Recommended	Strong evidence across all criteria
18–21	Solid	Good evidence with minor gaps
13–17	Limited	Some evidence, significant caveats
8–12	Weak	Insufficient evidence, use with caution
0–7	Not recommended	Lacks theoretical or empirical basis

Tools scoring below 8 are generally not listed in our library. We may list them with a "Not recommended" rating if they have significant user adoption and warrant a public warning.

4. Update and review cycle

Scheduled review — Every assessment is re-evaluated at least once every 24 months, or sooner if the publisher releases a major update.
Triggered review — We update reviews when new validation studies are published, when the tool changes ownership, or when we receive credible user reports of issues.
Version tracking — When a tool releases a new version, we note the change and re-evaluate if the scoring methodology or item pool has changed.

5. Conflicts of interest

We do not accept payment for reviews, ratings, or placement in our library.
Assessment delivery on our site is powered by FormLM. This is a commercial partnership. We disclose this relationship on every page where FormLM-powered assessments appear.
When we review a FormLM-powered tool, we apply the same criteria as any other tool. The partnership does not influence ratings.
If a reviewer has a personal or financial relationship with an assessment publisher, they recuse themselves from that review.

6. 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 within 14 days and publish corrections with a dated changelog.