Two assessments, one name — which one are you sitting?

These two instruments have almost nothing in common except a brand. The Cognitive Assessment is a speeded ability test: fifty multiple-choice questions pulled from a larger pool across verbal, numerical and abstract reasoning, twelve minutes for all of them, and a score that is simply how many you got right before the clock stopped. The Behavioral Assessment is a self-report: untimed, roughly six minutes, two questions over a single shared list of adjectives — one asking which describe how you are expected to behave at work, the other which really describe you — and it reports a pattern across four primary behavioral factors with a fifth, secondary one describing decision-making style. One has right answers and a clock. The other has neither, and cannot be passed or failed.

The confusion between them is not carelessness on anybody’s part; employers routinely send both at once and candidates receive one email about “the PI test”. But the two demand opposite things. On the timed one, preparation is legitimately useful, because a meaningful part of a first sitting goes on working out what the format wants rather than on the questions. On the untimed one, preparation is the failure mode: the value of a self-report depends entirely on it describing the person who filled it in, and a candidate coached into a different adjective set has arranged to be matched against a job that suits somebody else. That asymmetry is why only one of the two is drilled here.

One published detail about the timed assessment shapes what this page reports. The delivery engine is described as building an equivalent form on the fly so that a participant is never presented with the same assessment twice — which is a quiet admission that a count belongs to a form as much as to a person. Rather than argue about that, the drill measures it: run two forms and the panel stops printing a single number and starts printing the range your own count occupied. For the same argument made about a different assessment’s raw score, the score-reading page works through what a count does and does not support, and the fifteen-minute drill and the twelve-minute paper give you the same tempo problem in two other shapes. If the verbal row is the one costing you seconds, the bottleneck is often reading rather than vocabulary, and the reading age test measures that directly. And for the questionnaire half of a hiring process, the work-inventory page explains how forced-choice scoring and consistency checks work, the Caliper page covers a profile that mixes personality with abstract reasoning in one sitting, and the Hogan page covers how scale-based inventories are reported to an employer.

A reaction time here is the interval between the frame that painted the stimulus and the timestamp the browser attached to your key, both read from the same monotonic clock. What neither can see is the display pipeline behind it, so on a 60 Hz screen roughly 16 ms of every figure below is the machine rather than you. That is the timing floor: two numbers closer together than that are the same number, and this page reports no precision it cannot support.

This is a measurement exercise, not a clinical assessment. It reports what you did on this page against a stated reference and nothing more — it cannot establish dyscalculia, a language difficulty, or any other reason one of the three types came out slower than the rest. Only a qualified professional, working with more than a browser, can make that judgment.

Not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to The Predictive Index. Predictive Index is a trademark of its owner and is used here only to name the assessment this page prepares for. The questions on this page are our own: no part of the published test is reproduced, and a score here is not comparable to a score from the real instrument.