PortraitXT

What you see

The prompt asks "How well does this statement describe you?", an Item pill such as Item 3 / 16 shows your place, and a single statement sits on a card, such as "I stay calm when my plans fail." Below it is a scale of five equal steps, numbered 1 to 5, with a label under each:

1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neutral
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree

Choose a step, or press its number key, and the next statement appears. A Back button (or the left arrow key) reopens the previous statement with your answer still marked, so you can change it. When you finish, the card reads "All 16 statements answered." and you submit the set. It is recorded, never marked right or wrong. There is no time limit and you can pause. The catalogue instruction reads: rate how well each statement describes you, from strongly disagree to strongly agree; there are no right or wrong answers.

The statements

The statements cover six work-related facets: diligence, composure, sociability, openness, cooperation and ambition. Some are worded positively ("I set ambitious targets for myself") and some in the opposite direction ("I am satisfied with modest goals"). The second kind is called a reverse-keyed item. Several statements come in natural mirror pairs:

Diligence has its own, such as "I double-check my work for small errors" and the reverse-worded "I delay my work until just before the deadline". The bank holds 48 statements, four positively worded and four reverse-worded for each facet, so no statement repeats within a session. Each statement is checked against the facet and direction it is written in, and each is worded plainly, without idioms, so it is easy to read in a second language.

What changes as levels rise

Sessions start at level 3. Answers that pass the validity checks in full move you up a level; answers that fail them completely move you down.

What it measures

PortraitXT is a self-report trait questionnaire in the Likert tradition: you rate your agreement with statements, and a trait score is the average of your answers after flipping the reverse-keyed ones. Most workplace questionnaires map onto the Big Five, and PortraitXT's facets sit in that territory: diligence and conscientiousness, composure and emotional stability, sociability and extraversion, openness and openness to experience, cooperation and agreeableness. Ambition is a work-specific addition; Hogan's inventory, for example, has an Ambition scale among its seven.

There is no correct answer and no ability being measured. In our taxonomy PortraitXT is unrated and excluded from every score. What can be checked is response validity: whether the answers look like a real person answering carefully. That is what employers check too, using a family of techniques studied under the heading of careless or invalid responding. Meade and Craig examined several: special check items, consistency indices built from ordinary items, statistical outliers, response time, and self-reported effort. In their undergraduate sample, around 10 to 12% of people completing a long survey were identified as careless responders.

How it is scored here

• Consistency across paired questions. Within each facet, a positively keyed statement is paired with a reverse-keyed one. A pair counts as consistent when your two answers roughly mirror each other: when they add up to 6, give or take 1. Agree (4) with Disagree (2) is consistent; Agree (4) with Agree (4) is not.
• Longest run of identical ratings. The longest stretch of the same answer in a row. If that run is more than 35% of all the statements, the validity figure is reduced, and the reduction grows the longer the run gets.
• Facet profile. For each facet, the average of your answers after flipping reverse-keyed ones, on a 0 to 100 scale. Descriptive only.

How employers read questionnaires like this

Rating-scale questionnaires are the most familiar kind of personality measure, and employers use them in the same ways as forced-choice tools: comparing your profile with what a role needs, choosing interview questions, and supporting development. What they add is a set of checks on how you answered:

• Reverse-keyed consistency. Agreeing strongly that you enjoy meeting new people and that you usually stay quiet in a group is a flag.
• Long-string and extreme responding. Page after page of the same box, or nothing but 1s and 5s, suggests the scale stopped being read.
• Social desirability. Some questionnaires include statements that few honest people fully endorse, along the lines of "I have never been annoyed with anyone". Research on socially desirable responding distinguishes deliberate impression management from sincere but over-positive self-views. When people are instructed to fake, social desirability scales show the largest distortions.
• Benchmarks. Job applicants typically score a little higher than non-applicants on conscientiousness and emotional stability.

This is also why some well-known questionnaires use forced-choice or hybrid designs instead of pure rating scales: SHL's OPQ32r asks you to choose within blocks, and Saville's rate-and-rank format may ask you to rank statements you rated equally (see the Portrait lesson).

Authentic, not strategic

Every statement on a well-built questionnaire is designed so that no single answer is "right" for every job. Being satisfied with modest goals suits many roles very well; so does staying quiet in a group. The candidate who marks 5 for every positive statement and 1 for every negative one produces a perfectly "consistent" but implausible profile, and invites exactly the scrutiny they wanted to avoid. Saville's guidance to candidates is to be as honest as you can, use a wide range of the scale, and reflect on your own work style beforehand.

Where you will meet it

PortraitXT is a small cousin of these instruments: five points instead of nine, at most 48 statements instead of hundreds, and no forced ranking. The habits that make your answers usable are the same.

The method

1. Anchor to real behaviour

   For each statement, think of the last two or three times the situation came up in a project, internship or team. Rate what you did, not what you believe about yourself in general.

2. Read every word

   "Calm when my plans fail" and "nervous under sudden pressure" are close to opposites, but not identical: one is about a plan failing, the other about pressure that arrives suddenly. Answer the statement in front of you.

3. Use the whole scale

   Strongly agree and Strongly disagree exist for statements that clearly do or clearly do not describe you. Neutral is for genuine middle ground, not for "I'm not sure what they want".

4. Watch for autopilot

   If you notice the last several answers were all the same, pause. It may be accurate, but check that you are still reading.

5. Use Back sparingly

   Back is there to fix a slip, not to redesign your profile. Changing earlier answers to look better tends to create the inconsistencies the checks look for.

Worked example 1: the near-mirror pair

Early on, a candidate answers 4 (Agree) to "I stay calm when my plans fail". Later they answer 4 (Agree) to "I get nervous under sudden pressure".

Is that consistent, and what should they do?

By the mirror rule it is not: 4 + 4 = 8, outside the 5 to 7 band. A reader of the profile would see someone claiming to be both calm and nervous.

But it might be honest. The candidate may genuinely cope well when a plan fails and badly with sudden pressure. The right move is not to force a mirror; it is to read carefully and answer each statement truthfully. If it really is both, expect an interviewer to ask about it, and have a story ready: "I stay steady when a plan fails, and I've learnt to pause before reacting to sudden pressure."

Worked example 2: the long run

On a 20-statement session, a candidate's answers include a stretch of nine Agree answers in a row, and every mirror pair passes.

Work out the validity figure

The run is 9 of 20 statements, or 45%. The threshold is 35%, so the excess is 10 percentage points. The penalty scales so that a run of the whole session would reduce validity to zero: the multiplier is 1 − (0.45 − 0.35) ÷ 0.65, which is about 0.85. With every mirror pair consistent (100%), overall validity is about 85%.

On short sessions the threshold bites sooner. At level 1 there are only nine statements, so a run of four identical answers (44%) already counts against you, while a run of three (33%) does not.

Worked example 3: the perfect candidate

A candidate answers 5 to every positively worded statement and 1 to every reverse-worded one.

What would a real questionnaire make of this?

Every mirror pair adds up to 6, so a simple consistency check is satisfied, and runs stay short as long as positive and reverse-worded statements are mixed. But the profile is maximal on every facet: the most diligent, calm, sociable, open, cooperative and ambitious person imaginable. Real instruments use further checks for this pattern, such as social desirability items, forced-choice blocks and comparison with applicant norms, and an interviewer would probe it. The candidate has traded an honest, believable profile for one that invites doubt.

Tips and traps

Levelling up

Higher levels simply mean more statements: up to 48, none of them repeated. The challenge is attention over a longer run. Take the pause if you need it, and keep anchoring every answer to real behaviour so that mirror statements get mirrored ratings naturally.

1. Week 1
   • One PortraitXT session, anchoring each answer to a specific recent situation
   • Afterwards, note your longest run and whether it was deliberate
   • Write the five mirror pairs from this lesson from memory
2. Week 2
   • One longer session without using Back
   • Check whether you gave repeated statements the same rating
   • Compare the experience with Portrait: which format made you think harder?
3. Week 3
   • One session at the end of a long day to feel how fatigue affects attention
   • Prepare one interview story for each facet you rated yourself lowest on
   • Reread Saville's candidate advice and apply it in a final session

Check yourself

5 practice questions

1. What makes a mirror pair count as consistent in PortraitXT?
2. On a 20-statement session, what is the longest run of identical answers that does not reduce the validity figure?
3. Why do questionnaires include reverse-worded statements such as 'I usually stay quiet in a group'?

and 2 more

Create a free account to answerSign in

Sources

1. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
2. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
3. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
4. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 197–210. doi.org/10.1177/00131649921969802
5. 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. doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00354.x
6. Cao, M., & Drasgow, F. (2019). Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(11), 1347–1368. doi.org/10.1037/apl0000414
7. Hogan Assessments. Hogan Personality Inventory. hoganassessments.com
8. Saville Assessment. Introducing Wave Professional Styles (candidate preparation). savilleconsulting.dk
9. PrepInsta. Accenture and Capgemini recruitment patterns (candidate-reported). prepinsta.com/accenture, prepinsta.com/capgemini

Put it into practice: PortraitXTSign in to try it