Personality Tests: OPQ, Forced Choice, Sliders

A personality test for the workplace is a questionnaire employers use to see how you prefer to work: with people or alone, by the rules or by improvising, calmly or with visible energy. In graduate hiring you will meet three formats: forced-choice blocks such as SHL's OPQ (rank three statements, 104 times), sliders between two opposite statements, and rating scales (agree to disagree). They are usually untimed, take 5–25 minutes, have no right answers, and are compared with a norm group and the role's requirements. This guide shows each format as it appears in 2026 tests, explains how it is scored, and gives an honest preparation plan.

Key facts

What the formats look like

Forced-choice triads: the SHL OPQ

The OPQ32r shows one block at a time, and each block takes two screens:

1. Screen A: three statement cards stacked on top of each other, with the instruction "Which statement is most like you?" (German: "Welche Aussage trifft am ehesten auf Sie zu?", with "am ehesten" in bold). One click on a card moves on automatically. There is no separate "Next" button.
2. Screen B: the two remaining cards in their original order: "Which of the two remaining statements is most like you?"

The card you never click becomes your "least like me". You don't get a "least" button, so it is easy to forget that the second click decides your bottom choice as much as your second choice. Each block therefore gives a full 1-2-3 ranking.

What else you see: a progress bar with a percentage that rises by about 1 % per block, a "‹ Back" button (greyed out on the first block, active afterwards), an exit button in the header, and no timer. The statements are short first-person sentences of three to ten words with no scenario.

Two design features shape the whole questionnaire:

• Every statement is positive. Each block mixes three different scales, usually from different areas (relationships, thinking style, feelings), at similar levels of social desirability. You never get an obviously "right" card. That is deliberate: it makes the questionnaire hard to fake.
• Every scale returns many times, reworded. In the observed sitting, scales such as persuading, leading, speaking your mind, consulting others, working with data, critical evaluation and quick decisions each appeared six or seven times in the second half alone, each time in new words. OPQ32 covers 32 scales, so across 104 blocks every scale is sampled repeatedly.

Sliders: a work-style questionnaire

In an application round in autumn 2026, a Cappfinity work-style questionnaire ran as 30 sliders on three pages of ten. Each item had a short sentence opener (of the kind "At work, I tend to…"), a statement at the left end and an opposite statement at the right end. The track had no numbers, and the knob started at the far left. The instruction asked you to drag the slider to the position that best describes your preferred way of working, and to click or move the knob at least once even if you want the starting position, otherwise the item counts as unanswered.

Each page needed scrolling (four to six sliders fit on screen; the tenth item on one page had its anchors cut off below the fold). A progress bar filled as you went, and "Finish" became active on the last page. The whole questionnaire took about six and a half minutes.

Two things stood out:

• The "desirable" end switched sides. In about a third of the items (10 of 30), the answer most employers would like was on the left. If you drag every knob to the right, your profile contradicts itself.
• Themes repeated. Stepping out of your comfort zone came up four times, empathy six times, collaboration versus working alone six times, plus achievement drive, persistence and composure under pressure. Several sliders mirrored scenarios in the ranking exercise that came before them, which lets an employer cross-check your answers.

Rating scales (Likert)

The classic format asks how much you agree with a statement, for example on a 1–5 scale from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". Saville's questionnaires use a nine-point scale and then ask you to rank statements that you rated equally ("rate and rank"). Rating scales are fast, but they invite everyone to agree with everything flattering, which is why many publishers combine them with ranking or forced choice.

How personality tests are scored: ipsative vs normative

Normative scoring compares your answer on each scale with a norm group. Rating scales and sliders are naturally normative: someone who rates "I enjoy negotiating" 9 out of 9 scores higher on persuasiveness than someone who rates it 4.

Ipsative scoring compares your scales with each other. Classic forced-choice ranking is ipsative: every block hands out the same number of points, so your total is always identical, and the profile only shows what you prefer relative to your other preferences. That makes faking hard (you can't rate everything high), but it also makes comparisons between people tricky.

Modern forced-choice questionnaires solve this with item response theory (IRT). The OPQ32r is scored with a Thurstonian IRT model, which estimates where you stand on each scale from the pattern of your rankings, so the result behaves like a normative score while keeping the faking resistance of forced choice. In practice the employer sees a profile of 32 scales compared with a norm group, sometimes converted into predicted competencies for the role.

What this means for you:

• There is no right answer to a block, but your overall profile is compared with what the role needs.
• Rankings are informative only when they reflect real preferences. Random or "ideal" clicking produces a flat, noisy profile.
• Many reports include a consistency indicator: if you rank the same trait high in one block and low in a reworded block, the profile becomes less reliable, and some reports flag that.

Practice items with explanations

Personality items have no key, so the "answers" below explain what each item measures and how to think about it. All statements are original.

1. A forced-choice triad

Screen A: Which statement is most like you?

• I enjoy convincing people to back my proposal.
• I double-check figures before I send a report.
• I stay calm when plans change at short notice.

What it measures: three different scales: persuasiveness, attention to detail, and emotional composure. None is better than the others.

How to approach it: ask which statement describes your behaviour at work most often, click it, then repeat with the two that remain. If you honestly can't separate two of them, think of the last month at work or university: which of the two did you actually do more often? Spend about 5–10 seconds per screen. Do not "save" a statement for later; each block is scored on its own.

2. A slider with the desirable pole on the left

"When a deadline is suddenly brought forward, I…" LEFT: re-plan calmly and tell people what changes ←——————→ RIGHT: find it hard to think about anything else until it is done

What it measures: composure under pressure. Here the answer most employers hope for is on the left, the reverse of the previous few items.

How to approach it: read both anchors every time before you drag. Place the knob where your behaviour really sits; the middle is a legitimate answer if both describe you equally.

3. A rating-scale block with a reversed item

Rate 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree):

1. I like to have a clear plan before I start.
2. I often start work before the details are settled.
3. I keep a list of what still needs doing.

What it measures: structure and planning. Item 2 is reverse-keyed. Rating all three as 5 is a contradiction: it says you always plan and rarely plan.

How to approach it: notice reversed wording ("often start before the details are settled") and answer it as its own statement, not as "agree because it sounds proactive".

4. Consistency check: the same trait, reworded

Across a long questionnaire you might see these statements in four different blocks:

• Before I commit, I check with the team.
• I prefer decisions we reach together.
• I like to talk plans through with colleagues first.
• Hearing other opinions comes before my own verdict.

What it measures: a consultative, democratic style, sampled four times.

How to approach it: you don't need to remember earlier blocks. If you know where you stand on "decide alone vs consult first", your rankings will be consistent on their own. That is why reflecting on your trade-offs before the test (see the plan below) beats trying to track answers during it.

Traps and how to avoid them

• Forgetting the leftover card. In two-step ranking, the card you don't pick on screen B is your "least like me". Make that choice consciously.
• Auto-advance mis-clicks. One click moves on. If you click the wrong card, use the back button straight away.
• The untouched slider. A knob left at its starting position can count as unanswered. Click or move every knob.
• Switching poles. Read both anchors on every slider; the attractive answer is not always on the same side.
• Anchors below the fold. Scroll until you can see both ends of the last slider on each page.
• Chasing an ideal profile. Trying to look like the "perfect candidate" in every block flattens the profile and produces contradictions between reworded items. A believable, stable profile is more useful to you.
• Answering for your private life. These are work questionnaires. Think of how you behave in a team, a project or a part-time job.
• Overthinking. About 10–15 seconds per triad block is plenty. Long deliberation tends to produce the inconsistencies you want to avoid.
• Ignoring the other parts. Sliders and statements can mirror the situational judgement test and later interview questions. Your answers should tell the same story everywhere.

How to prepare honestly

You can't study for a personality test the way you study for maths, but you can remove surprises and make sure your answers reflect you. A two-hour plan:

1. Learn the format (20 min). Read this page and take the free personality practice on the publisher's site if your invitation names one (SHL lists a "Personality" practice test). Notice how the two-step ranking feels.
2. Read the employer's values (20 min). Most firms publish a competency or values model. Note which behaviours they stress. The point is not to copy them but to know where your genuine strengths overlap, so you can talk about them later.
3. Map your trade-offs (45 min). Write one honest sentence and one real example for each pair: rules vs variety; people vs data; leading vs consulting; speaking up vs listening first; planning vs improvising; calm vs visibly energetic under pressure; competing vs cooperating. These are exactly the dilemmas forced-choice blocks put in front of you.
4. Plan the session (5 min). Untimed does not mean short: block 25 quiet minutes, on a laptop, with no interruptions.
5. On the day (15–25 min). Answer for how you behave at work now, go with your first considered reaction, read every slider's anchors, and use the back button only for real mis-clicks.
6. Afterwards. Some employers send a feedback report or discuss the profile in the interview. Be ready to give an example for your top and bottom scales.

Sources

• SHL product catalogue, OPQ32r (104 items, approx. 25 minutes)
• SHL, OPQ Product Fact Sheet (untimed, average 15–25 minutes).pdf)
• Onrec, SHL launches OPQ32r with three statements per block
• Brown, A. (PhD thesis), Item response modelling of forced-choice questionnaires (Thurstonian IRT; OPQ32 re-scoring)
• Saville Assessment, nine-point rating and ranking of tied statements
• SHL candidate practice tests (includes "Personality")

Geschreven door

Adrian, specialist

MSc Psychologie, 7 jaar tests maken.

Laatst bijgewerkt: Oct 1, 2026