What Personality Assessments Are Good For
| Use Case | Example Dimensions |
|---|---|
| Work style & communication | Direct vs. Collaborative, Analytical vs. Intuitive, Structured vs. Flexible |
| Self-discovery & coaching | Values, Strengths, Growth areas, Motivators |
| Team dynamics & culture fit | Collaboration style, Autonomy preference, Risk tolerance |
| Brand personality quiz | Creativity, Boldness, Warmth, Attention to detail |
| Learning style | Visual, Auditory, Reading/Writing, Kinesthetic |
Design Your Trait Dimensions First
Dimensions are the axes on the radar chart — each one is a distinct personality trait or tendency. Getting them right before writing any questions is the most important step. Good personality dimensions are:- Non-judgmental: every dimension should feel worth having — there’s no “bad” trait, only different tendencies
- Mutually understandable: participants see dimension names on their report, so each name should immediately make sense
- Distinct: each dimension measures something different, with minimal overlap
Build Your Assessment
Create the Form
Click New Form → choose an Assessment template (15+ available), or use Create with AI — describe the personality traits or style dimensions you want to explore and Evan generates questions and a starting dimension structure.
Define Your Dimensions
In the form editor, open Assessment Settings and add your dimensions. The names appear directly on the participant’s radar report — choose words that feel descriptive and resonant, not clinical.
Add Questions Using Likert Scale
Likert Scale is the natural field type for personality assessments — participants rate their agreement with statements like “I prefer having a clear plan before starting” rather than picking from discrete options. For each question, assign it to a dimension and set point values so stronger agreement scores higher for that trait.
Writing Personality Feedback That Resonates
The Analysis & Suggestions section is the entire payoff of a personality assessment. Generic feedback breaks the illusion — specific, second-person observations make it feel like a genuine mirror. For each dimension, write feedback for at least 3 score ranges (low / mid / high):- Describe the tendency, don’t label it: “You tend to gather the full picture before committing to a direction” lands better than “You scored high in analytical thinking”
- Make every range feel valid: a low score on Structure isn’t a weakness — it’s a preference for flexibility and improvisation. Frame it as a genuine trait, not a deficit.
- Write in second person, present tense: “You approach problems by…” not “People with this score tend to…” — specificity creates resonance
- Keep it actionable where possible: especially for lower scores, a brief suggestion (“You might find it helpful to…”) turns insight into value