Understanding and Upholding Ethical Standards in Psychometric Practice

by Kashayá Stewart GMBPsS

Psychometric assessments are powerful tools. In the right hands, they can highlight strengths, guide personal development, support well-being, and inform life-changing decisions in workplaces and beyond (Monticone et al., 2021). With that influence, however, comes great ethical responsibility. Whether used for leadership development, recruitment, coaching, or organisational insight, psychometric tools must be developed and applied in ways that are fair, respectful, scientifically grounded, and protective of those involved (Flores-Kanter & Mosquera, 2023). Ethical psychometrics is, therefore, foundational to the integrity and impact of psychological measurement. Understanding the core principles of ethical practice is essential not only when creating assessments but also when choosing and applying them.

Informed Consent

At the heart of ethical psychometrics lies the principle of informed consent (Akhurst & Leach, 2023). No individual should complete an assessment without first understanding why it is being administered, what the results will be used for, who will have access to the data, and how privacy will be protected (Akhurst & Leach, 2023). Participation must be genuinely voluntary, with individuals informed that they may decline or withdraw without penalty (Sherman et al., 2021).

Informed consent is more than a form or a tick box. It requires transparency from the outset (Kimberly et al., 2019). Plain, accessible language must be used instead of jargon or overly technical explanations. Ensuring individuals are fully informed about the purpose and scope of their involvement is critical, whether participating in early development testing, taking part in a workplace initiative, or completing accreditation. Fundamentally, informed consent is an expression of respect, and that respect underpins the trust placed in psychological tools and practitioners.

Fairness and Inclusivity

A psychometric assessment is only as ethical as it is fair (Wijsen et al., 2021). Regardless of its technical sophistication, if an assessment disadvantages certain groups, intentionally or otherwise, it fails its ethical obligation (Oladunmoye et al., 2024). Fairness involves ensuring assessments are appropriate and accessible across different cultures, geographies, languages, and neurotypes. This responsibility begins during development and continues throughout the tool's lifecycle.

Bias can enter through seemingly minor choices, such as culturally specific language, unfamiliar references, or cognitive assumptions that exclude neurodivergent individuals (Woo et al., 2022). A deliberate and structured approach is required to identify and mitigate these risks. This includes conducting language and clarity checks to ensure accessibility across regions and first languages, engaging diverse participants in the review process, and responding to concerns around bias transparently. Inclusivity should not be treated as a final step but embedded throughout the design process.

Scientific Integrity

Ethical practice requires that psychometric assessments are scientifically robust (Souza et al., 2017). If a tool lacks reliability and validity, any conclusions drawn from it, even with good intentions, may be flawed or harmful.

Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure. For example, if a person completes the same assessment on two occasions under similar conditions, their results should be stable (Vetter & Cubbin, 2019). Techniques such as test-retest analysis and internal consistency measures, including Cronbach’s alpha, are standard in evaluating psychometric soundness (Moon et al., 2018). A high alpha score indicates that items designed to assess a particular construct are working cohesively.

Validity determines whether a tool measures what it claims to (Souza et al., 2017). This includes content validity, which ensures the full concept is addressed rather than a narrow slice. For instance, a strengths-based tool should not only explore how strengths influence thinking but also consider how they show up in interaction, leadership, or delivery. Subject matter expertise plays an essential role in ensuring completeness.

Criterion-related validity is equally important. This evaluates whether assessment results correlate meaningfully with real-world outcomes (Cosci et al., 2019). For example, if a psychological safety tool predicts improved team collaboration or reduced burnout, such findings demonstrate both practical relevance and responsible design. Validity is tested through methods such as factor analysis and regression modelling, with results used to refine the assessment over time. Scientific rigour should be maintained in accordance with established professional standards, such as those of the British Psychological Society.

Data Privacy and Security

Psychometric assessments often require individuals to share personal thoughts and reflections. In order for this to happen openly, data privacy must be assured (Caska, 2020). Ethical data handling goes beyond legal compliance. It reflects a commitment to safeguarding psychological information.

Practices aligned with frameworks such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and ISO standards help ensure that data is secure, access is limited, anonymity is preserved where appropriate, and participants are clearly informed about how their data is used. Ethical responsibility in this area is not a technicality. It is a cornerstone of trust between individuals and the organisations administering assessments.

Appropriate Use

No psychometric tool, however well-designed, should be used to make decisions in isolation. Ethical use requires clarity about what a tool can reveal and, equally, what it cannot (Hughes, 2018).

Assessments exploring areas such as decision-making, strengths, resilience or psychological safety are best used to open reflective dialogue rather than to categorise individuals or predict performance in isolation. Tools should not be used for fixed profiling or selection without broader context.

Interpretation of results should always consider the wider environment, individual experiences, and intended purpose. This is particularly critical in leadership or resilience-focused development, where misuse or over-interpretation of results can lead to unintended consequences. Accreditation and training play a vital role in ensuring that practitioners apply psychometric results with care and context.

Participant Support

Ethical practice extends beyond the administration of an assessment. Participants should have opportunities to engage with the results, ask questions, and access support (Whitney & Evered, 2022).

Open channels for queries, feedback, and reflection should be in place. Practitioners must be equipped to facilitate follow-up conversations, helping individuals understand and act on insights gained. Ethical psychometrics is not only about preventing harm. It is about enabling benefit.

Ethics as an Ongoing Responsibility

Perhaps the most essential principle of all is that ethical practice is never static. It must evolve alongside science, technology, and society (Bush et al., 2018). This means continuously reviewing assessments, staying alert to new risks and developments, including those presented by artificial intelligence, and integrating emerging research and participant feedback.

Ethics should not be viewed as a one-time consideration or the remit of a single team. It must be embedded across all aspects of psychometric design and application, guiding decisions with care, curiosity, and integrity.

Conclusion

When designed and applied ethically, psychometric tools provide significant value. They can help people better understand themselves, navigate change, and make more confident decisions. But such tools are never neutral. They reflect the values, assumptions, and intentions of those who create and use them. That is why ethics in psychometric practice is not optional. It is fundamental.

By placing ethics at the centre of design and delivery, assessments can move beyond measurement, offering meaningful, respectful, and inclusive insight that serves individuals and organisations alike.

Want to learn more?

For a deeper dive into the ethics of psychometrics, tune into Episode 76 of the Chief Psychology Officer Podcast, as Dr Amanda Potter and Dr Stewart Desson discuss the principles behind responsible assessment and the difference between state and trait-based tools.

If you're exploring ethical, research-backed tools for leadership development or organisational insight, the BeTalent suite is a good place to start – get in touch with Angela Malik to find out more.

References 

Akhurst, J. E., & Leach, M. M. (2023). Confidentiality, informed consent, and multiple relationships in four emerging regions. Ethics & Behavior, 33(3), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2152339 

Bush, S. S., Sweet, J. J., Bianchini, K. J., Johnson-Greene, D., Dean, P. M., & Schoenberg, M. R. (2018). Deciding to adopt revised and new psychological and neuropsychological tests: an inter-organizational position paper. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 32(3), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1422277 

Caska, B. (2020). Psychometrics at Work: How to Ensure Test Results You Can Trust. DBS Business Review, 3. https://doi.org/10.22375/dbr.v3i0.60 

Cosci, F., Svicher, A., Romanazzo, S., Maggini, L., De Cesaris, F., Benemei, S., & Geppetti, P. (2019). Criterion-related validity in a sample of migraine outpatients: the diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research. CNS Spectrums, 25(4), 545–551. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1092852919001536 

Hughes, D. J. (2018). Psychometric Validity. The Wiley Handbook of Psychometric Testing, 751–779. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118489772.ch24 

Kimberly, L. L., McQuinn, M. W., Caplan, A. L., & Levy-Carrick, N. C. (2019). The Ethics of Psychosocial Assessment in Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation: A Call for Transparency of Process to Support the Equitable Selection of Patients. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 30(4), 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1086/jce2019304318 

Monticone, M., Galeoto, G., Berardi, A., & Tofani, M. (2021). Psychometric Properties of Assessment Tools. Springer EBooks, 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68382-5_2 

Moon, S. J., Hwang, J. S., Kim, J. Y., Shin, A. L., Bae, S. M., & Kim, J. W. (2018). Psychometric Properties of the Internet Addiction Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(8), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0154 

Oladunmoye, E.O., Oyedele, L.O., Enamudu, G.P. , Nakalema, F., (2024). Assessing Psychometric Tools in Online Education: Effectiveness and Obstacles in Virtual Learning Assessments. ISAR Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(12), 8-13. 

Pablo Ezequiel Flores-Kanter, & Mosquera, M. (2023). How do you Behave as a Psychometrician? Research Conduct in the Context of Psychometric Research. ˜the œSpanish Journal of Psychology, 26. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2023.14 

Sherman, K. A., Kilby, C. J., Pehlivan, M., & Smith, B. (2021). Adequacy of measures of informed consent in medical practice: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251485 

Souza, A. C. de, Alexandre, N. M. C., & Guirardello, E. de B. (2017). Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. Epidemiologia E Serviços de Saúde, 26(3), 649–659. https://doi.org/10.5123/s1679-49742017000300022 

UK Statistics Authority. (2022). Ethical considerations associated with Qualitative Research methods. UK Statistics Authority. https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/publication/ethical-considerations-associated-with-qualitative-research-methods/pages/4/ 

Vetter, T. R., & Cubbin, C. (2019). Psychometrics: Trust, but Verify. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 128(1), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000003859 

Whitney, C., & Evered, J. A. (2022). The Qualitative Research Distress Protocol: a Participant-Centered Tool for Navigating Distress during Data Collection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21(1), 160940692211103. Sage Journals. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221110317 

Wijsen, L. D., Borsboom, D., & Alexandrova, A. (2021). Values in psychometrics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(3), 174569162110141. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211014183 

Woo, S. E., LeBreton, J. M., Keith, M. G., & Tay, L. (2022). Bias, Fairness, and Validity in Graduate-School Admissions: A Psychometric Perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(1), 174569162110553. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211055374