How to Read a Sales Assessment Report Without Getting Fooled
To read a sales assessment report, start with who the candidate is being compared to, treat scores as tendencies rather than grades, and look for the patterns that matter for your role. The most useful comparison isn't the general workforce. It's your own best salespeople, measured on the same assessment.
Most owners get the report, skim for anything flagged red, glance at the summary and file it. That's understandable. Assessment reports are dense, and they rarely say "hire" or "don't hire." But a report read badly can be worse than no report at all, because it lends false confidence to a decision you'd already made.
What does an assessment report actually measure?
Most sales assessments measure some mix of two things: how someone thinks and how they tend to behave.
Cognitive ability is roughly how quickly someone learns and solves problems. In a 2022 review published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Sackett, Zhang, Berry and Lievens found cognitive ability tests were a useful predictor of job performance across jobs, though weaker than older research had suggested.
Personality describes typical patterns: drive, organization, sociability, how someone handles pressure. The same 2022 review found conscientiousness predicted performance, but modestly. Personality scores add information. They don't replace evidence of what someone has actually done.
What does a score actually mean?
Usually a percentile, and a percentile is a comparison, not a grade. If a candidate scores in the 80th percentile on a trait, they scored higher than about 80% of the comparison group. So the first question is always: compared to whom?
Hogan Assessments, one of the major vendors, says its HPI and HDS assessments are normed on samples of over 100,000 working adults. That's useful for a general picture. It tells you nothing about whether this person will succeed selling for your company.
Hogan also states that there is no such thing as an ideal score or personality profile. That's a vendor talking, but it's good advice. A high score isn't automatically good, and a low one isn't automatically bad. A very high drive score can mean ambition. It can also mean someone who steamrolls your customers.
Why can scores mislead in sales specifically?
Two reasons.
First, what predicts a manager's opinion isn't always what predicts sales. An older meta-analysis of salesperson performance by Vinchur and colleagues found cognitive ability predicted supervisor ratings quite well but barely predicted objective sales results. Achievement-related traits did better on actual sales. So decide what "success" means for your role before you decide which scores matter.
Second, candidates manage their answers. A meta-analysis by Birkeland and colleagues of 33 studies found job applicants scored noticeably higher than non-applicants on conscientiousness and emotional stability, exactly the traits employers look for. In a field study of real applicants by Rosse and colleagues, when the researchers simulated hiring only the top 5% of scorers, 7 of the 8 people hired were among those with the most inflated answers.
There is a counterpoint. A large retest study by Hogan, Barrett and Hogan found that among rejected applicants who retook the test about six months later, 5.2% or fewer improved their scores on any scale. Two of the authors founded Hogan, so weigh that accordingly. The fair reading is that faking happens, but it's not unlimited, and a good report is designed with it in mind.
Why compare candidates to your own people?
Because your best salespeople are the clearest picture you have of what works in your business. If five of your top performers complete the same assessment, you can see where they cluster and where your finalist sits against them.
Hogan published an example from health care supply sales: a profile built from that company's own reps, with performance data on 225 of them, correlated .44 with supervisors' overall performance ratings, after statistical correction. That's vendor material, and one company's result. But it shows the principle: a benchmark built from your people beats a generic ideal.
This is also what makes an assessment fair and defensible. Measuring against job-related behaviour from your own successful staff is very different from measuring against a vague idea of fit.
How should you read the report, step by step?
Check the comparison group. General workforce, salespeople, or your own staff?
Know what success means for the role first. New business, account growth, or complex deals? That tells you which scales matter.
Look at patterns, not single scores. Three related scales pointing the same way mean more than one outlier.
Read the risk or derailer section carefully. These describe how someone may behave under pressure, which is when sales roles get tested.
Be wary of a perfect profile. Every score high on every desirable trait is worth a closer look.
Test what you read in the interview. If the report suggests a candidate avoids conflict, ask about the last time they had to push back on a customer.
Never let one report decide. Combine it with a structured interview, references and the candidate's track record.
We've written more on psychometric testing for sales roles and on how to evaluate interview candidates once you have the results.
An assessment report won't tell you who to hire. Read well, it tells you what to look for, which is often more useful.
Work with us. Ashley Wesley, MA, CHRL, CIM, and our team are based in Guelph, Ontario. Our Final Candidate Review includes benchmark testing of your own key staff, owners and team members, so your finalist is compared with your real team, not a generic norm. Our handshake guarantee: if the report and process don't help, you don't pay.
In short
A sales assessment report usually shows percentiles, which compare a candidate to a group, so start by checking who that group is. Cognitive ability and personality both predict performance, but personality more modestly, and candidates tend to inflate traits like conscientiousness when applying. Read for patterns tied to what success means in your role, test what you see in the interview, and compare the finalist with your own best salespeople on the same assessment.
Key takeaways
Cognitive ability tests predict job performance, though less strongly than older research suggested (Sackett et al., 2022).
Applicants scored noticeably higher than non-applicants on conscientiousness and emotional stability in a meta-analysis of 33 studies (Birkeland et al., 2006).
Cognitive ability predicted supervisor ratings of salespeople far better than objective sales results (Vinchur et al., 1998).
Among rejected applicants who retook a personality test about six months later, 5.2% or fewer improved on any scale (Hogan, Barrett and Hogan, 2007).
A health care supply company's own sales benchmark correlated .44 with supervisor performance ratings, after correction (Hogan, vendor white paper).
Frequently asked questions
What is a good score on a sales assessment?
There isn't one universal good score. It depends on what the role needs and who the candidate is being compared to. The best reference point is how your own successful salespeople score on the same assessment.
Can candidates fake a personality test?
Some do. Research shows applicants tend to score higher on desirable traits like conscientiousness than non-applicants. Well-designed assessments account for this, and you can test what the report suggests in a structured interview.
Should I use a free online personality test for hiring?
No. Use a validated assessment designed for hiring, with documented norms and research behind it. A free quiz may not measure what it claims, and it would be hard to defend if challenged.
Can I reject a candidate based only on an assessment?
It's not a good idea. An assessment is one input. Combine it with a structured interview, references and the candidate's track record, and make sure every criterion is job-related. Confirm anything uncertain with employment counsel.
References
Birkeland, S. A., Manson, T. M., Kisamore, J. L., Brannick, M. T., & Smith, M. A. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of job applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(4), 317-335. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/psy_facpub/2324
Hogan Assessments. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions. https://www.hoganassessments.com/faq/
Hogan Assessment Systems. (2015). Predicting healthcare-supply sales-representative performance [White paper]. https://www.hoganassessments.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Healthcare20Supply20Sales20Representative20CR20White20Paper_FINAL.pdf
Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1270-1285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1270
Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 634-644. https://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/Rosse/Documents/JAP%20Response%20Distortion%20article.pdf
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040-2068. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994
Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 586-597. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.586
Disclaimer: This article provides general HR and business information, not legal advice. Employment law turns on the specific facts and changes over time. Before acting on anything here, confirm it with an Ontario employment lawyer.
