What Is the Hogan Assessment?

The Hogan assessment is a suite of workplace tests from Hogan Assessments, and its three core instruments (the Hogan Personality Inventory, the Hogan Development Survey, and the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory) are personality and values questionnaires with no right or wrong answers. The one cognitive test in the family is the Hogan Business Reasoning Inventory (HBRI), a 24-item measure of business reasoning that takes about 30 minutes. Employers use the suite for hiring and leadership development, and this article explains what each test covers, how results are reported, and how the whole package differs from an IQ test.

Hogan Assessments was founded in 1987 and built on the work of Drs. Robert and Joyce Hogan. The company is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and reports offering products in 51 languages and dialects, operating across 66 markets through more than 200 partners, and having assessed more than 14 million people worldwide. Most candidates meet a Hogan test through one of those partner consultancies rather than through Hogan directly.

• Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI): Hogan calls this the "bright side" of personality: how you relate to others when you are at your best. It grew out of "socioanalytic theory" in the 1980s, the premise that getting along with others and getting ahead are the dominant themes of social life, and it is organized around the five-factor model. Seven primary scales (Adjustment, Ambition, Sociability, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Prudence, Inquisitive, and Learning Approach) break into 42 subscales, and completion takes about 15 to 20 minutes. Hogan says the HPI has been validated in more than 1,000 research studies.

• Hogan Development Survey (HDS): The "dark side" companion measures qualities that emerge in times of increased strain and can disrupt relationships, damage reputations, and derail careers. It has eleven scales, from Excitable and Skeptical through Diligent and Dutiful, with 33 subscales, and also takes about 15 to 20 minutes. Hogan describes these as everyday workplace "derailers," which is different from a clinical diagnosis.

• Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI): The values piece measures the core goals, drivers, and interests that shape what a person wants from work, across ten scales such as Recognition, Power, Altruistic, Security, and Science. Employers use it to gauge job satisfaction and culture fit. Like its siblings, it runs about 15 to 20 minutes.

None of these three inventories has correct answers. They are self-report descriptions of typical behavior, values, and stress responses, which is why you cannot pass or fail them in any meaningful sense.

The Hogan Business Reasoning Inventory is the exception. Hogan describes it as a measure of "reasoning style," the ability to evaluate sets of data, make decisions, solve problems, and avoid repeating past mistakes. It covers two kinds of problem solving: "qualitative reasoning" (working with data visualization, logic, and verbal information) and "quantitative reasoning" (working with mathematical and spatial information). The instrument is driven by a 24-item question set, and the timed version runs 30 minutes, with an average completion time of about 25 to 30 minutes. Hogan markets it as the first measure of reasoning ability designed to predict real-world performance in a business setting, normed on working adults globally.

Because the HBRI has correct answers, it behaves like a cognitive ability test rather than a personality inventory. Hogan's own technical materials note that the 30-minute timed version produces a roughly normal distribution of scores, that reports group test takers into four score ranges designed to hold about 25% of the population each, and that only around 6% of test takers answer every item correctly.

All Hogan instruments are "normative," meaning your responses are converted into percentile scores against a comparison group rather than graded against a fixed answer key. Reporting is instantaneous once the questionnaire is finished. There is no pass mark built into the tests themselves; each employer decides what profile fits the role, so the same HPI report can read favorably for one job and poorly for another.

Candidates usually encounter the suite as an unsupervised online screen before hiring, or inside executive coaching and high-potential programs, where the HDS in particular is used to flag potential derailers before they become career problems.

For the three personality inventories, the standard advice is to answer honestly, because there is nothing to practice when there are no right answers. The HBRI is different. A meta-analysis of 107 samples covering 134,436 people found that retaking cognitive ability tests raises scores by an adjusted average of about a quarter of a standard deviation, with larger gains when candidates receive coaching or see identical test forms. Modest practice gains on the HBRI are therefore expected, exactly as they are on other cognitive tests.

Hogan states that HBRI items were developed to minimize reading requirements and adverse impact, and the company describes its personality instruments as showing no adverse impact. Those are the publisher's own claims, so treat them the way you would treat any vendor's marketing material: plausible, but not independent evidence.

Personality and cognitive ability predict work outcomes differently. In the most recent large re-analysis of selection research, structured interviews carry a mean validity of about .42 for predicting job performance, general cognitive ability tests about .31, and conscientiousness measures about .21. Hogan's researchers have argued, in a well-known 2003 study, that personality predicts better when scales are matched to the specific criteria of getting along and getting ahead. Both points can be true at once: cognitive ability remains one of the strongest single predictors, and personality adds distinct, smaller increments of information.

It is also worth being clear about what the HBRI is not. A 24-item, 30-minute business reasoning test samples cognitive ability far more narrowly than a full IQ battery, and it reports a business-framed reasoning profile rather than an IQ score. Employers who want a cognitive screen often use instruments like it, the SHL test, or the Predictive Index cognitive assessment, while critical-thinking measures such as the Watson Glaser test occupy similar territory for legal and managerial roles.

For an actual IQ score, a dedicated test is required. The RIOT IQ test (the Reasoning and Intelligence Online Test) reports a full-scale IQ with a stated margin of error: the free version takes about 8 minutes with a margin of error of ±14.9 IQ points, the Basic version takes about 13 minutes at ±5.6, and the Full version runs 15 subtests over about 52 minutes at ±3.7. The difference in precision is what separates a quick business screen from a proper intelligence measurement.

Three things across three tests: normal "bright side" personality (HPI), "dark side" derailers under stress (HDS), and core values and motives (MVPI). An optional fourth test, the HBRI, measures business reasoning, which is a form of cognitive ability.

Each of the HPI, HDS, and MVPI takes about 15 to 20 minutes, per the publisher. The HBRI averages 25 to 30 minutes, with a 30-minute timed version.

No. The personality inventories have no right answers, and reports are percentile profiles. Each employer decides what profile fits the role, so a result that hurts one application can help another.

It is a short cognitive ability measure framed for business decision-making, and it does not report an IQ. A dedicated IQ test with published margins of error, such as the RIOT IQ test, is needed for an actual IQ score.

For the personality sections, answering honestly is the standard advice. For the HBRI, research on cognitive-test retesting shows modest score gains from practice, on the order of a quarter of a standard deviation.

1. Hausknecht, J. P., Halpert, J. A., Di Paolo, N. T., & Moriarty Gerrard, M. O. (2007). Retesting in selection: A meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 373-385. doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.373

2. Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100-112. doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100

3. Hogan Assessments. (n.d.). Hogan Business Reasoning Inventory. hoganassessments.com

4. Hogan Assessments. (n.d.). About us. hoganassessments.com

5. 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. doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994

6. Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2023). Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 283-300. doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.24