A verified hiring signal — intelligence, knowledge, adaptability, character, and drive — measured by performance, not claimed on a résumé. Complete six assessments, get a result link any employer can verify in one click.
About 45 minutes total. No account required.
Degrees signal that you finished school. Your verified result link shows how you actually think, learn, and handle pressure — the things hiring managers wish they could see before the first interview. Add it to your résumé and LinkedIn.
Send a candidate through the full battery and receive their verified result link: dimensional scores, session-integrity notes, and a tamper-evident checksum. One price per verification — cheaper than one bad hire by orders of magnitude.
Each pillar answers a question a hiring manager is actually asking:
You learn: reasoning ability under time pressure — still the single best predictor of job performance across roles. Why this test — the research ↓
You learn: crystallized knowledge plus genuine reasoning — curiosity and clear thinking, regardless of schooling. Why this test — the research ↓
You learn: cognitive flexibility and control from timed performance tasks — task switching, working memory, and rule updating — scored with transparent, accuracy-sensitive formulas. What they do, not what they say. Why this test — the research ↓
You learn: how they figure out an unfamiliar tool they’ve never seen — and how they collaborate with a quirky AI. Fresh scenarios each sitting, so walkthroughs go stale fast. Why this test — the research ↓
You learn: integrity under trade-offs — forced-choice workplace dilemmas scored across honesty, fairness, loyalty, and moral courage. Reported as a stated-values profile. Why this test — the research ↓
You learn: sustained effort from behavior, not just self-report — including a persistence task they can quit at any time. Why this test — the research ↓
None of these pillars is here because it sounds good in a pitch. Each one earned its place in the personnel-selection literature — and where researchers disagree about a number, we say so.
Reasoning under time pressure is the closest thing personnel science has to a universal predictor — it feeds every other skill on this page.
What the research says: Schmidt & Hunter’s meta-analysis of 85 years of selection research found general mental ability the single best predictor of job performance (validity ≈ .51) and of training success — ahead of experience, education, and interviews. A 2022 re-analysis argues the honest figure is lower (≈ .31) under stricter corrections; the ranking — reasoning first — holds either way.
Schmidt & Hunter (1998), Psychological Bulletin · Sackett et al. (2022), Journal of Applied Psychology
What a person has absorbed about the world is the raw material every new problem gets solved with — and knowledge compounds: the more you know, the faster you learn the next thing.
What the research says: Gottfredson’s analysis of cognitive ability in everyday life showed knowledge and reasoning act like a tailwind precisely because modern work is information complexity — reading the form, catching the inconsistency, knowing what a number means. In Schmidt & Hunter’s hierarchy, job-knowledge measures likewise sit near the top of all predictors. This is not trivia night: it is the substrate reasoning runs on.
Gottfredson (1997), Intelligence · Schmidt & Hunter (1998), Psychological Bulletin
Jobs change mid-shift. Dropping a stale rule, holding a new one in mind, and switching cleanly is what “fast learner” actually means when you watch it happen.
What the research says: Pulakos and colleagues built the standard taxonomy of adaptive performance from critical incidents across 24 jobs — handling change, emergencies, and shifting priorities is a measurable dimension of job performance, not a vibe. Their follow-up validation work found cognitive ability and adaptability measures predict supervisors’ ratings of adaptive performance, which is why this pillar is timed performance tasks rather than self-description.
Pulakos et al. (2000), Journal of Applied Psychology · Pulakos et al. (2002), Human Performance
Every workplace now hands people tools that didn’t exist last year — increasingly AI tools. The differentiator is judgment about the tool: fluency plus knowing when its output is wrong.
What the research says: in the Harvard Business School / BCG field experiment, 758 consultants using GPT-4 completed 12.2% more tasks, 25.1% faster, at over 40% higher quality — but on a task outside the AI’s capability “frontier,” AI users were 19 percentage points less likely to reach the correct answer. Using the tool well and knowing when not to trust it are one measurable skill, so this pillar uses fresh scenarios each sitting: applying a walkthrough is exactly the failure mode it catches.
Dell’Acqua et al. (2023), Harvard Business School Working Paper 24-013 · SSRN
The costliest hiring failures are character failures — theft, shortcuts, quiet rule-breaking — and they are the hardest thing to interview for, because everyone interviews honest.
What the research says: the landmark meta-analysis of integrity testing (665 validity coefficients, over half a million data points) found integrity measures predict job performance (operational validity ≈ .41) and, more distinctively, counterproductive behavior — theft, disciplinary problems, absenteeism. A later re-analysis reported smaller but still positive estimates, which is why this battery reports a stated-values profile from forced-choice dilemmas instead of a pass/fail “honesty score.”
Ones, Viswesvaran & Schmidt (1993), Journal of Applied Psychology · Van Iddekinge et al. (2012), Journal of Applied Psychology
Most jobs are marathons of unglamorous follow-through. Who keeps going when a task stops being interesting shows up in behavior long before it shows up in references.
What the research says: Duckworth and colleagues introduced grit — perseverance toward long-term goals — as a predictor of retention and achievement beyond talent. The comprehensive meta-analysis that followed sharpened it: the active ingredient is perseverance of effort specifically, and it overlaps heavily with conscientiousness. So this pillar measures sustained effort directly — including a persistence task the taker can quit at any time — instead of trusting a questionnaire, and in sales samples grit has been linked to job performance and satisfaction.
Duckworth et al. (2007), J. of Personality and Social Psychology · Credé, Tynan & Harms (2017), JPSP · Dugan et al. (2019), J. of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Effect sizes are as reported in the papers linked. TestMyself’s own scoring bands remain provisional while population norms are gathered (see the note at the bottom of this page).
One payment, no subscription, no account. Checkout is handled securely by Stripe.
Six assessments, about 45 minutes total. Timed performance tasks where it matters, honest self-report where it doesn’t.
Get a result link with your dimensional scores and a tamper-evident checksum. Employers open it and see exactly your scores — nothing editable.
We’re onboarding our first candidates and hiring partners now. Verified outcomes and testimonials will appear here as the pilot cohort completes.
Two tracks. One payment each — no subscriptions, no seat licenses to manage.
Hiring in DFW? Onboard new hires in minutes with dfwmetro.net's free digital packet — I-9, W-4, direct deposit, signature.
Payment is processed securely by Stripe.
Performance tasks (reaction time, task switching, the mystery utility) can’t be faked the way a questionnaire can — you either do them or you don’t. Every session also records integrity notes: tab switches, time away, and response-time outliers, shown alongside the scores. Result links carry a tamper-evident checksum. Honest framing: this is strong screening evidence, not a proctored exam.
Exactly what the candidate sees: dimensional scores for all six pillars, plain-language interpretations, and the session-integrity notes. Nothing hidden, nothing editable after the fact — the checksum on the link proves it.
Read our validity, norms & appropriate use page — it states what the evidence supports today, what we do not claim (no completed criterion study of this battery yet, no population norms, never a sole hiring basis), and the monitoring duties that stay with the employer. We would rather you read the limits before you buy than after.
About 45 minutes total across six assessments. Each one can be done separately — progress within an assessment needs one sitting.
One full completion per purchase. If you want a fresh run later — new skills, new evidence — purchase again.
Full refund if a technical failure on our end prevents you from completing the assessments. Completed assessments are non-refundable — but your result link is yours to keep and share regardless.
No account required. We measure what the assessment needs: your answers, per-question timing, and focus signals like tab switches — that’s how we score fairly, enforce one scored attempt per purchase, and keep results credible for employers. No ad-tech, no third-party trackers, nothing sold. Payment is processed by Stripe, whose checkout is subject to Stripe’s own privacy policy.
✓ No account required ✓ No ad-tech ✓ Nothing sold, ever
Your answers are scored on our servers — answer keys never leave the server, which is what makes a result verifiable instead of self-reported. Anonymized timing data helps calibrate question fairness over time. Your result link is yours to share — or never share. The only third party in the loop is Stripe, solely to process your payment.
Screening instruments for self-insight and hiring exploration — not clinical or certified psychometric devices. Scoring bands are provisional while population norms are gathered.
Questions, documentation requests, or inquiries from counsel or compliance: thegemologist@gmail.com — we answer in writing.