A young person's face refracted through a glass prism into an indigo spectrum

Science

29 dimensions. Five layers. Research-grade.

PRISM isn't a personality quiz. It's an aggregate map across five research layers, built on published, peer-reviewed paradigms — and for personality and interests, on published public-domain instruments. Every weight has been reviewed by an industrial / organisational psychologist.

Read on for the details ↓

The five layers

Each layer answers a different question. Together they form a complete picture of how a person performs.

  1. How do they think? How fast do they absorb?

    01: Cognitive

    How do they think? How fast do they absorb?

    Six cognitive dimensions drawn from standard instruments: fluid reasoning (matrices), working memory (N-back), processing speed (Flanker), attention and inhibition (Go/No-Go), numerical reasoning, and verbal reasoning.

  2. How do they act under pressure?

    02: Behavioral

    How do they act under pressure?

    Five behavioral dimensions captured by weighted cognitive games: risk preference (BART), planning, impulse control, cognitive flexibility (WCST), and reward learning.

  3. The Big-5 traits.

    03: Personality

    The Big-5 traits.

    Short-form IPIP items (120 statements), covering Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability: the academic standard for personality measurement.

  4. What actually interests them?

    04: Interest

    What actually interests them?

    Holland's RIASEC: six dimensions (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional), the foundation of most career-orientation tests worldwide.

  5. What's worth pursuing?

    05: Values

    What's worth pursuing?

    Work-values items grounded in cross-cultural values research: achievement, relationships, autonomy, security, impact, stability; each weights how well a candidate fits a role's expectations.

Citations & sources

Every measurement in PRISM is grounded in published, peer-reviewed research. These are the scientists, papers, and institutions behind the model.

Read the full methodology — every dimension, its instrument, and its limits →

Personality: Big-5

  • Lewis R. Goldberg

    International Personality Item Pool (IPIP)

    Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4 (1).

    ipip.ori.org

  • Paul T. Costa & Robert R. McCrae

    Five-Factor Model (NEO-PI-R)

    Costa & McCrae (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) Professional Manual. PAR Inc.

    parinc.com

Interest: RIASEC

  • John L. Holland

    Holland Codes / Vocational Personality Theory

    Holland, J. L. (1997). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments (3rd ed.). PAR Inc.

    self-directed-search.com

  • U.S. Department of Labor: O*NET

    Occupational classification: 900+ jobs scored on RIASEC + 240 work attributes

    PRISM's career taxonomy (448 degree-requiring families) is built on O*NET's occupational database with MENA-anchored extensions.

    onetonline.org

Cognitive

  • Wang & Su

    Raven-style matrix generation

    Wang, K. & Su, Z. (2015). Automatic Generation of Raven's Progressive Matrices. PRISM generates its items in this paradigm — these are not Raven's SPM and carry none of its norms.

    ijcai.org

  • Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory

    Theoretical framework for cognitive abilities

    Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies. Cambridge University Press.

    cambridge.org

Behavioral: cognitive games

  • Carl W. Lejuez et al.

    Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART)

    Lejuez et al. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8 (2).

    psycnet.apa.org

  • Eriksen & Eriksen

    Flanker Task

    Eriksen, B. A. & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter. Perception & Psychophysics, 16 (1).

    link.springer.com

  • Wayne K. Kirchner

    N-back task

    Kirchner, W. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55 (4).

    psycnet.apa.org

  • Berg & Grant

    Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST)

    Grant, D. A. & Berg, E. A. (1948). A behavioral analysis of degree of reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38 (4).

    parinc.com

Workplace judgment: SJT

  • Michael A. McDaniel & Deborah L. Whetzel

    Meta-analysis of situational judgment tests

    McDaniel et al. (2007). Situational judgment tests, response instructions, and validity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60 (1).

    siop.org

  • Filip Lievens

    Contemporary SJT research

    Lievens, F. (2017). Construct-driven SJTs: Toward an agenda for future research. International Journal of Testing, 17 (3).

    tandfonline.com

Reference institutions & databases