How Assessment Platforms Organize Their Questions

Question banks are these massive databases, and they store thousands upon thousands of different assessment questions. Every question in there has been tagged with a few pieces of information, and these tags help the system know the right time and how to use each question.

The way these systems set up their questions is actually what makes them work so well. Most of the modern tools group their assessments around what they call competency frameworks, and the logic here is pretty smart. Microsoft found something worth mentioning about this a few years ago. They’d been categorizing all their assessment questions by job titles and role descriptions, which made perfect sense on paper. But then they decided to restructure everything around competency clusters, and the results were quite something – their ability to predict if a candidate would succeed in the job went up by 30%. The same exact questions, just organized differently.

Every question in these databases comes with its own metadata – a history and a profile that tells you everything about how that question performs and what it does. Validation scores show you if a question actually measures what it’s supposed to measure. Usage history tracks every time that a question has shown up in an assessment, and you can see the patterns in how candidates usually answer it. Discrimination indices are where the data gets especially valuable, though, because these tell you which questions are the best at separating your top performers from everyone else. The entire analysis rests on a mathematical framework known as Item Response Theory. Frederic Lord (a psychometrician) laid out these concepts back in the 1950s, and his ideas are still at the heart of how we think about these problems today.

The database structure itself has to be very strong to manage instant retrieval from what could be millions of possible question combinations. The tags work as a thorough filing system, and one question might carry 20 different labels or more. The system can then pull just the right set of questions based on whatever particular criteria you need for a particular assessment at any given time.

How Systems Pick the Right Questions

Question banks need a reliable system to decide which questions each employee sees, and the technology that drives these decisions is actually pretty great once the process makes sense. Assessment platforms manage this challenge through a few different methods, and adaptive algorithms have become one of the best ways to do this. These systems adjust the difficulty level on the fly based on each person’s performance. Answer a question correctly, and the next question automatically gets harder. Miss one, though, and the system dials it back to give you something more manageable. The GRE has relied on this technology for years now, and lots of employee assessment tools have followed suit because it gives a far more accurate measurement of someone’s true ability level.

Adaptive testing has value in some contexts, though it won’t always be the right fit for every organization. Lots of businesses actually go with randomization as their preferred approach and for solid reasons – it gives you a strong balance of fairness and makes their assessments nearly impossible to predict. The way it works is that the system pulls different questions for each test-taker from a bigger pool. What’s clever about it is that even though everyone sees different questions, the total difficulty level stays consistent across the board. Research from the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology found that when randomization is implemented properly, it can cut down on cheating incidents by as much as 60% – it’s a dramatic improvement to test integrity, and all it takes is changing up which questions each candidate receives.

The challenge is to get the balance right between randomization and consistency. Organizations want to stop employees from memorizing question patterns or passing answers around to their colleagues, and it makes sense. At the same time, they have to make sure that they’re measuring everyone’s skills fairly and accurately. The algorithms running these systems have to always track which questions have been appearing most frequently and then rotate them out of circulation for a while. Without this type of rotation, you’d get stuck with the same handful of questions appearing over and over, as other perfectly fine questions never see the light of day.

Employees are always going to share information with one another about what questions they got, and word travels fast when the same ones keep popping up again and again. The algorithms behind these systems are tracking how much each question gets used, and they’ll automatically pull any question that’s been seen by too many test-takers and put it on the shelf for a while. This active rotation and careful tracking are what make these assessments worthwhile – otherwise, they’d lose their ability to actually measure the skills they were built to test.

Types and Formats of Assessment Questions

After the system pulls questions from its bank, candidates are going to see a handful of different formats come their way. Every format has its own job, and each one measures different abilities that matter when a person starts working.

Situational judgment tests are one of the easiest formats that make sense – employers just present you with a workplace scenario and then ask how you’d respond if you were in that position. McDonnell Douglas Corporation was one of the first businesses to start with it back in the 1990s for their pilot recruitment process. They’d figured out that technical skills alone weren’t enough – they also needed pilots who could stay calm and make smart decisions when everything was going wrong at 30,000 feet. Almost every big company uses some version of these tests to gauge if a candidate can work through tough office situations or stay cool with an irate customer screaming at them over the phone.

Cognitive ability questions are split into 2 main categories. The first type tests crystallized intelligence and just means the vocabulary and industry knowledge that you’ve built up over time. The second type measures fluid intelligence through pattern recognition and abstract reasoning puzzles that make you think in new ways. Most candidates feel much better when they get work samples instead of abstract tests, which makes total sense – work samples actually feel connected to the job you’re trying to get.

Behavioral questions dig into what you’ve done before because employers figure that past performance is a decent indicator of what you’ll do later. Video-response formats have taken off lately, and there’s a strong reason for that. Research from Yale showed that video questions cut down on bias by around 25% compared to traditional methods, which is a big improvement for businesses trying to build more diverse teams.

Every candidate has their own strengths, and the way they show those strengths changes quite a bit. Some candidates write beautifully and can express themselves very well on paper. But then they completely fall apart in verbal interviews. Others are the exact opposite – they absolutely nail hands-on demonstrations and tests. But they have a hard time with written assessments or multiple-choice formats. Smart employers know this, and that’s why they use a combination of assessment methods. The result is a much better picture of who each candidate actually is and what they can do.

Technical positions usually focus heavily on work samples and knowledge tests because those directly relate to the work. Customer service roles lean heavily on situational judgment since working with customers is the whole job. Leadership positions usually combine behavioral questions with cognitive assessments because leaders need experience and problem-solving ability. The exact combination always depends on what that particular role actually needs for a person to succeed in it.

How These Assessment Tools Actually Work

Multiple choice questions about coding syntax are fairly simple for assessment tools to handle – the candidate either picks the right answer or they don’t. There’s no ambiguity there at all. The challenge comes when that same candidate has to write 3 paragraphs to explain their way of working with an angry customer. The scoring suddenly gets a lot more nuanced, and that’s where the assessment tools have to do most of their heavy lifting.

Technical questions are scored in a pretty simple way and for a valid reason. A compound interest calculation has one correct answer – the math either works out or it doesn’t, and there’s no room for interpretation on that front. Behavioral questions are a whole different beast. They need scoring rubrics with lots of detail built in. 3 reviewers could read the exact same response about conflict resolution and give it 3 different scores, even when they’re all working with the same set of criteria to grade it.

The validation process matters because it tells us if these test scores can predict how well a person will do on the job. Schmidt and Hunter spent years studying this exact question, and what they found was pretty eye-opening. Cognitive ability tests correlate with job performance at about 0.51, and in workplace psychology, that’s a very strong connection. What does that mean for employers? Candidates who score well on validated cognitive tests usually do much better once they’re actually working in the role.

Every organization eventually has to decide on its own threshold for what makes a passing score versus a failing one. The Angoff method has become one of the more popular ways to set these cut scores, and it works by having subject matter experts look at each question and estimate the percentage of minimally qualified candidates who would get it right. It does take some time. But the alternative is to pick numbers out of thin air.

Hiring teams usually discover something unexpected when they start to work with validated assessments. A candidate who impressed everyone in their interview sometimes scores way below average on the assessment, and this disconnect happens all the time. Calibration meetings help address this by bringing the right experts into a room to look at what the candidates actually wrote and then adjust the scoring criteria. This helps make the whole assessment process fair and makes sure it still measures what it’s supposed to measure.

Methods That Keep Online Tests Secure

Online assessment cheating is a legitimate concern that assessment teams face every day. Businesses spend thousands on these testing platforms, and they need to know that their results are actually valuable. The technology has become pretty advanced, though, and most modern question banks have multiple layers of protection built right into them.

Browser lockdown has become an important security measure for online testing. The software takes over your computer screen completely, and you can’t do anything else as it’s running – no new tabs, no switching between programs, and no copy-pasting. The more advanced systems take security to another level with keystroke tracking, mouse movement analysis, and behavioral pattern detection that can catch suspicious activity. A few testing firms have also started using webcam technology with AI capabilities that can see others in the room, can catch when students repeatedly glance away from their monitor, and will even flag students who appear to be reading answers from a secondary device like their phone.

The technology that we see today started gaining momentum after the assessment industry had to deal with pretty bad cheating scandals. Harvard’s 2012 incident was a wake-up call for everyone in the testing world.

Question banks solve the cheating problem in a pretty simple way. Even when two candidates sit for the same assessment in the same room at the same time, their tests look nothing alike since each test-taker receives a different combination of questions randomly selected from a large pool. The big standardized tests have been doing this for years – TOEFL cycles through thousands of questions specifically because it stops test-takers from memorizing and sharing answers. And even when candidates compare feedback after their exams to help their friends get ready, those friends will see a very different set of problems anyway.

The pattern detection capabilities in these systems are where the technology becomes interesting. The software tracks dozens of data points that humans would never catch on their own. A test-taker whose scores jump from always failing to suddenly being perfect? That gets flagged right away. Multiple test-takers submitting the exact same incorrect answer to an obscure technical question? The system catches that too. Response times are another dead giveaway – when someone answers a tough multi-step problem in 2 seconds flat, the platform knows something’s not right.

The simplest anti-cheating strategy might actually be more helpful than all the high-tech ones combined. Studies have found that when test-takers are told that their exam is being monitored for cheating, dishonest attempts drop by about 40%. No AI proctoring needed, no keystroke tracking, and no advanced technology. Test-takers just follow the guidelines more closely when they think someone’s watching them – even if nobody actually is.

The Bottom Line for Your Company

Behind every assessment that a candidate takes, there’s a massive amount of technology and careful planning that stays completely hidden from view.

The person who’s answering questions probably assumes they’re just filling out another form. At the same time, on the backend, you have sophisticated algorithms at work, statistical models that validate everything, and multiple security layers all running simultaneously. The entire infrastructure has been built specifically to review each candidate fairly.

When you try to convince your team to trust these systems over their own interview instincts, it isn’t always straightforward, especially in the beginning. You’ll run into hiring managers who’ve been doing interviews the same way for decades, and they might not immediately warm to the idea of data shaping their decisions. The resistance usually fades pretty fast, though. After they experience firsthand how much more reliable the results are and after they see they don’t have to scramble to create new interview questions for each candidate anymore, even the skeptics usually come around. A solid picture of the mechanics behind these systems has the ammunition you need to win over doubtful colleagues and also helps you set the right expectations for what assessment tools can realistically accomplish.

When you base hiring decisions on data, it takes the guessing out of the equation, and it also helps to remove those unconscious biases we all have but don’t always know are there. So for businesses, those talented candidates who would have slipped through the cracks suddenly have a genuine shot. And you have solid data to back up every hiring choice you make, which protects you from a legal standpoint while also making you confident that you’re bringing in the right talent for the right reasons.

At HRDQ-U, we deliver HR training that actually helps when employees get back to their desks. Our upcoming webinar, “Inside the AI Lab – How We Reinvented Assessment Design,” digs into the latest assessment technology that’s already transforming how organizations look at talent.

Need stronger communication across your organization? “The Write Way To Communicate” from HRDQStore teaches employees to write business messages that others actually read and understand. The program walks you through everything from how to plan and organize content to writing messages that accomplish what you need them to accomplish, and saves everyone time and builds credibility throughout the company.