Pavla Kaňková
+420 771 297 711
Can modern HR rely solely on intuition when it comes to recruitment and development? At a time when candidates use generative artificial intelligence to create flawless self-presentations, the role of valid psychodiagnostics becomes crucial. We spoke with Martina Hejduková, HR Science Analyst at TCC online, about how to connect psychological theory with practice—and why it is essential to calibrate assessment tools to the local context.
Martina Hejduková works at the intersection of psychological theory and hard data. Her role includes both the development of new psychodiagnostic methods and the ongoing maintenance and quality control of existing ones. “Developing a new method is one thing, but maintaining its quality over time is another”, says Martina Hejduková, who also bridges professional practice with her academic studies in psychology.
Why Numbers Matter
HR professionals often encounter the argument that people are not just numbers. However, as Martina Hejduková points out, numbers are precisely what give psychodiagnostics credibility. “Numbers significantly help people understand reality, because psychology is built on statistics. If we want to avoid relying purely on intuition or assumptions, we need something solid to rely on—and that something is data,” she says.
This shift is also reflected in the increasing demand for measurable and interpretable outputs. Today, clients are no longer satisfied with intuition-based judgements alone; they want reliable data they can confidently use when making crucial people decisions.
The Key Role of Norms: Why a Global Test Is Not Enough in a Local Context
One of the key quality factors in psychodiagnostics is proper adaptation of methods to the target population. A test without a high-quality, representative norm loses its validity. “If a method is not adapted to the local context in a methodologically sound way, it will not be sufficiently reliable or fair for respondents. We need a well-established norm for the specific population,” explains Martina Hejduková.
She illustrates this with a practical example: “If I assessed an American candidate’s level of extraversion using a Japanese norm, the person might appear highly above average, while within the American population, they could actually be below average. Cultural and regional differences can be substantial, which is why proper localisation of assessment tools is essential.”
Quality Parameters: Reliability and Validity
According to Martina Hejduková, every high-quality psychodiagnostic tool must meet two fundamental criteria: reliability and validity. Reliability ensures that results remain stable when the test is administered repeatedly within a reasonable time frame. Validity, on the other hand, confirms that the tool truly measures what it claims to measure.
She explains the difference using a simple metaphor: if we imagine throwing darts at a dartboard, reliability means that all darts land in the same place, while validity means they land in the center.
AI Creates Perfect Candidates—Psychodiagnostics Brings Them Back to Reality
The rise of generative AI has introduced a new phenomenon into recruitment: candidates who appear exceptionally well prepared. “Clients often tell us that candidates show up at interviews extremely well prepared. They simply ask AI: ‘I’m going to a job interview—tell me what to say to look like the perfect candidate.’ Then they walk in, and everyone seems flawless,” says Martina Hejduková.
Paradoxically, this trend reinforces the importance of psychodiagnostics rather than diminishing it. Well-designed assessment tools can identify response distortion, social desirability, and excessive self-stylisation. It is natural for candidates to want to present themselves in the best possible light. However, extreme stylisation into a ‘perfect, flawless hero’ is a signal that needs to be taken into account during interpretation—or may even raise questions about the validity of the results.
A Broad Portfolio: From Personality to Assertiveness
The TCC online portfolio currently includes nearly twenty psychodiagnostic methods, allowing organisations to address a wide range of recruitment and development needs. Among the most frequently used tools are the Multifactor Personality Profile and the Career Compass, alongside more specialised instruments such as the Communication Style – Assertiveness Questionnaire.
Assertiveness is a key competence for anyone who works with people and is particularly crucial in managerial roles. “An assertive person is someone who openly expresses their needs, feelings, and opinions while respecting others. Rudeness no longer meets this definition,” explains Martina Hejduková. She also emphasises that assertiveness is measured separately for workplace contexts and everyday life, as behavior may differ significantly across environments.
The Future: Preventing Counterproductive Work Behavior
Looking ahead, psychodiagnostics is likely to become even more precise. Martina Hejduková expects continued development of new models that enable more accurate score calculations and improve overall validity.
One concrete example of current development at TCC online is the Work Attitudes Questionnaire, created in response to market demand. Its purpose is to identify potential counterproductive work behaviors before a candidate is hired, such as unreliability or tendencies toward work avoidance.
Psychodiagnostics is a scientifically grounded pillar of modern HR, providing structure, fairness, and evidence where intuition alone is no longer sufficient. It is not a tool reserved only for large corporations, but a practical and accessible solution for small and medium-sized organisations as well.
Podcast Transcript (English Translation)
This article contains an English translation of a podcast transcript. The podcast was originally recorded in Czech and transcribed using automated speech-to-text technology.
Tomáš Pospíchal (TP):
Today, we’re going to talk about how to connect psychology with hard data from psychodiagnostic tests and how to apply all of this in practice. My guest today is Martina Hejduková, HR Science Analyst at TCC online. Martina, have you ever encountered a test with a controversial result that you then had to interpret?
Martina Hejduková (MH):
With our own methods, I haven’t encountered that situation. But during my psychology studies, I sometimes come across results from methods that are not entirely high-quality. In those cases, a certain level of inconsistency can appear directly in the results.
Bridging Theory and Practice: The Role of an HR Science Analyst
TP: You mentioned that you are still studying while already working. What is it like to compare theory with practice?
MH: It’s great, because university studies are largely theoretical, and something is always missing there. Practical experience enriches it enormously. I can apply what I’ve learned at university to real, practical situations.
TP: I completely understand that. Your position is called HR Science Analyst. What exactly does that mean?
MH: It involves several things. The best way to explain it is to describe what I actually do. My work includes both the development of new psychodiagnostic methods and the maintenance and quality control of existing ones. Developing a new method is one thing, but ensuring its quality remains high over time is equally important.
TP: When we talk about data from psychodiagnostics, what exactly can we imagine under that? What do you actually assess in candidates?
MH: The data we collect depends on which assessments the candidate completes. It can be a questionnaire mapping personality, motivation, or work style, or a performance-based test, such as an abstract reasoning test or similar assessment.
TP: If we look at the current period, meaning the turn of 2025 and 2026, which of these assessments prevail?
MH: Our most frequently used questionnaire by far is the Multifactor Personality Profile, which maps an individual’s personality.
The Crucial Role of Localization and Representative Norms
TP: What is the difference between an online test without Czech localisation and a test created specifically for the Czech environment?
MH: The difference lies in the fact that if a method is not carefully adapted to the Czech environment in line with professional standards, the test lacks quality and fairness toward the candidate. To ensure comparability, we need a high-quality norm specific to the given population—in this case, the Czech population.
It is based on this norm that an individual’s score is then compared. For example, if we assessed the level of extraversion of an American and compared their score to a Japanese norm, they might be evaluated as significantly above average, even though within the American population, they might actually be below average. Regional and cultural differences can be substantial, which is why it is crucial that a test is always adapted to the specific population.
TP: How quickly do these data become outdated? How long do they remain valid?
MH: It depends on what is being measured. There are certain things in psychology that we consider relatively stable—for example, personality, although even that can change to some extent. But then there are areas in which a person can develop and improve, actively work on them, and in those cases, the results can change more quickly.
TP: And what about developments in the labour market? Does the content and scope of individual roles change over time? Do you perceive any shifts there?
MH: The methods we use target specific skills or personality characteristics that can appear across different roles. So even if specific roles change, there is always something that remains measurable. In general, roles evolve, while key competencies—such as communication with people—remain consistently important.
TP: I see. What role does the frequency of individual positions within an organisation play? A general manager or CEO is usually just one person, whereas in middle management, there may be dozens of people. Does that mean you also have different sample sizes and, consequently, different norms?
MH: Yes, definitely. A norm should meet certain characteristics, such as balanced representation of men and women, different levels of education, age, or socioeconomic status—it depends on what we include. But if we have no substantial reason to believe that CEOs who complete the questionnaire should have a different norm than, for example, managers, the same norm can be used. The same sample can be applied if it is sufficiently representative.
TP: Have you also encountered the opinion: “Well, people are not just numbers”?
MH: Of course. But numbers help people understand things significantly better, because psychology is built on statistics. If we want to avoid relying only on impressions or assumptions, we need something to rely on—and that something is numbers. That’s why we need them.
Recognizing Quality: Reliability vs. Validity Explained
TP: Can you give an example of how to recognise a good psychodiagnostic test? What parameters must it meet? And which tests should one avoid?
MH: First of all, a test needs to be reliable. Reliability means that if I complete a test once and then complete it again within a reasonable time interval, I should obtain the same result..
TP: And what would be considered a reasonable time interval?
MH: That depends on whether I am measuring something that I actively develop. If I take a test focused on a specific skill again after four months and achieve better results, that can be a sign that I have improved. It does not necessarily mean that the test is unreliable. On the contrary, it is desirable to measure improvement in certain areas.
Reliability is extremely important. And the other key requirement is that the test measures what it is supposed to measure.
TP: Can we imagine that in some simple way?
MH: We can imagine throwing darts at a dartboard. We want all the darts to land in the centre—every single one. The fact that the darts land consistently in the same place represents reliability. And the fact that they land in the centre means that the test measures exactly what it is supposed to measure.
TP: Are there any other parameters that a test should meet?
MH: It is also important that the norm against which my result is compared is based on a representative sample. We have already touched on this a bit. The point is that the comparison of my result must be fair.
For example, if I complete an intelligence test and obtain a total score of 35 points, that number alone does not mean anything. I need to compare those 35 points with people from my population. Only then do I get information about how I actually stand. And that is precisely why a representative norm is so important.
Integrating Psychodiagnostics into the Recruitment Process
TP: Questionnaires and tests are usually part of the recruitment process. When do they make sense? For which positions does it pay off for companies to use them?
MH: I would say they make sense almost always. It depends on the specific position and on what I need to verify, identify, or map. It is based on an analysis of the specific job role. But practically speaking, I can imagine the use of psychodiagnostics for almost any position.
TP: At which stage of the recruitment process do you think it makes sense to use psychodiagnostics?
MH: The key question is whether psychodiagnostic information is absolutely crucial for the person conducting the recruitment—whether, without it, nothing can move forward. In that case, it should be included right at the beginning to immediately filter candidates.
If it is not crucial but instead serves as complementary information that helps distinguish between the strongest candidates, it can be used in the final stage of the recruitment process.
TP: From the perspective of someone responsible for hiring, clarity of test outputs is crucial. How do you ensure that the results are clear and not overloaded with complex graphs?
MH: At TCC online, we typically place a simple graph with brief explanations on the first page so readers get a basic overview of the results. Since a graph alone does not convey detailed information, the following page contains a textual interpretation results.
This is followed by a section with information about a person’s strengths and areas for improvement, which then lead to specific development recommendations.
TP: From my own experience, with some interpretations I’ve come across, I’d probably need at least two semesters of psychology to fully understand them.
MH: Then that’s the perfect time to try one of our methods.
TP: From your perspective, when does interpretation really make sense—not from a business point of view, but when is your involvement truly useful and appreciated by HR departments or managers? Where do you see the added value?
MH: It makes sense when someone feels they could extract more from the report and needs to ask follow-up questions about information they feel is missing. Or when questions arise from what they are reading. In those situations, interpretation definitely adds value.
TP: How should test results be shared with candidates?
MH: That also depends on the companies administering the tests. Personally, I see it as beneficial when candidates receive the output as well, including those who are not selected. It provides them with valuable feedback.
TP: Have you also encountered situations where some candidates refused to complete a test or questionnaire?
MH: I personally haven’t, but I believe it can happen, and it is natural. Participation must be voluntary, and if someone does not agree, no one can force them.
TP: Are there differences between what the company—the client commissioning the questionnaire or test—sees and what the candidate sees? Can that be differentiated?
MH: No, the output report is one and the same; it summarises the results and is identical. However, the client may have additional perspectives and information, such as the option to compare results with role expectations through Job Matching or to sort candidates based on those results.
TP: TCC online’s portfolio is quite broad. Do your partners usually know exactly what they need? Do they understand the terminology used in the tests, or do you still work on that together?
MH: It definitely involves consultation. Sometimes clients have a very clear idea and receive exactly what they ask for. Other times, they need to discuss the available options and clarify what information the questionnaires or tests will actually provide.
Often, they are also looking for recommendations. For example, they may want to identify which areas to focus on in employee development and need guidance on which questionnaires or tests will help them achieve that.
Measuring Success: HR Metrics and Job Matching
TP: Metrics in HR are an endless topic, but are there any key KPIs that indicate that the tests and the overall methodology are effective and actually work for a company?
MH: If companies use psychodiagnostic questionnaires and tests already during recruitment, they can see the impact quite quickly, because they are more likely to select a candidate who fits the team and performs well in the role.
The same applies to development. If companies choose the right methods, identify what needs to be developed, and design their development programs effectively, the results become clear over time.
When setting up Job Matching based on internal data, we most often rely on measurable performance indicators (such as revenue or the number of newly closed contracts) or on length of tenure in the role, in which case we look for individuals who demonstrate long-term stability and do not leave within the first year.
TP: The market for psychodiagnostic tests is relatively saturated. Where do you see the main added value of the solution offered by TCC online?
MH: In addition to meeting quality standards such as validity, reliability, and representative norms, our questionnaires and tests are also time-efficient. We aim not to place an unnecessary burden on the people completing them. Completing a questionnaire or test usually takes between five and fifteen minutes. So instead of spending an hour on a single long test, a person can complete three or four assessments within that time.
We also offer companies a wide range of complementary services that increase the overall value of our psychodiagnostics—for example, the already mentioned Job Matching or the creation of Job Matching models based on data provided by the client.
Understanding Assertiveness: Workplace vs. Everyday Life
TP: You mentioned tests for assertiveness and communication during candidate selection. Why assertiveness in particular?
MH: The Communication Style – Assertiveness Questionnaire exists because anyone who works with people needs to communicate and interact with others. The workplace is a social environment, so it is useful to map these behaviors and have a clear idea of where we stand.
TP: Do you distinguish in the questionnaire between assertiveness used at work and assertiveness used at home, with friends, and in everyday situations?
MH: Yes, we have two separate questionnaires. The first is the Communication Style – Assertiveness Questionnaire (WORK), which measures assertiveness in the workplace. The second one, labelled LIFE, is more suitable for everyday situations where assertiveness may or may not be applied. We then recommend that one, for example, for personal development or coaching.
TP: How different are the results of these two questionnaires? If they differ at all.
MH: Honestly, they are very closely related, because a person does have a certain level of assertiveness within themselves. What differs are the items and, more specifically, the environments in which the situations are embedded.
If a questionnaire is used in a corporate context, it should not ask about personal situations, and vice versa. Using the correct context also increases reliability—meaning that the questionnaire measures assertiveness in the situations where the candidate will actually apply it.
TP: But there is also another aspect worth mentioning, isn’t there?
MH: Yes. Assertiveness is one thing, but it can vary depending on whether I’m communicating with people close to me or with people I don’t know. It’s similar to how someone may appear very confident in public but much less so at home.
TP: What are the reasons for this kind of behavior?
MH: There can be many reasons. Some people feel safer among strangers, while others feel safer among people they know well. Some are more assertive with close ones because they know them, have boundaries established, and know they can afford to give even negative feedback. With strangers, we may feel hesitant to say something negative.
TP: In the corporate environment, assertiveness is still sometimes perceived as “healthy cheekiness.” Is that accurate?
MH: In my view, not really. Assertiveness means openly expressing one’s needs, feelings, and opinions while respecting others. Cheekiness does not fully meet that requirement of respect.
Respect and consideration for others must be present. If there is cheekiness combined with other factors, we would already be talking about aggressive behavior.
TP: What should a company do if it already has a completed set of assertiveness assessments? How do you follow up with interpretation and next steps—what usually happens then?
MH: That depends on the specific company. It is very individual and depends on the situation in which the questionnaire was used, as well as on the results. If it is part of recruitment and serves as one of several inputs about a candidate, the outputs may not be used beyond the hiring decision.
Alternatively, the results can be used to set up onboarding more effectively, or they can serve as a basis for designing a development program.
TP: Are there any trainings or workshops that can follow up on this topic? What would you recommend?
MH: The key thing is to know exactly what needs to be developed in terms of assertiveness, because assertiveness is not just one single thing—it includes many different aspects.
It may be about whether a person can assert themselves, build relationships while still standing up for themselves, hold their ground, politely say no when they do not want something, and so on. So it is very useful to map out all these aspects and tailor development activities accordingly.
TP: For which positions would you recommend these questionnaires, and which positions do you most often work with? Can this even be clearly defined?
MH: A questionnaire that maps assertiveness is suitable for anyone who works with people. That said, I see particularly high value in managerial roles. It is important for a manager to communicate with their team considerately but also effectively.
Assertiveness supports effective interaction—nothing is suppressed, everything is communicated openly, while relationships are maintained at the same time.
Psychodiagnostics for Small Business vs. Corporations
TP: Are your questionnaires and tests used more by large companies and corporations, or is it more mixed?
MH: It is definitely for everyone. Psychodiagnostics is applicable to large companies as well as to medium-sized and small organisations.
Paradoxically, in small companies, a poor hiring decision is often much more visible and has a greater impact on the organisation as a whole. If you make a poor hiring decision for a salesperson in a team of dozens, it may not significantly affect overall performance. But if you make a poor hiring decision for the only salesperson, the company may run into problems much sooner than it finds a replacement.
TP: In smaller companies, directors often say that they can tell whether a new employee will fit in. Do you agree with that, or do you think testing is useful there as well?
MH: Having things mapped out “in black and white” always pays off. People often know a colleague only within their own team—they may know that the person is assertive, but they do not know how they behave toward people from other teams or toward external clients.
And as we discussed, assertiveness can manifest differently in those situations, which can become a critical issue. Moreover, the belief that “we can tell” is often based on intuition and gut feeling. And that is precisely where it can go wrong—because if they are mistaken, they may be seriously mistaken, as they have no factual anchor.
The fact that a candidate makes a good impression on their future manager does not automatically mean they will perform well.
The AI Impact: How to Spot the “Perfect” Candidate
TP: What has generative artificial intelligence changed since 2022?
MH: I’d apply this more broadly to psychodiagnostics as a whole. We increasingly hear from clients that candidates are extremely well prepared for interviews because they use AI and ask it: “I’m going to a job interview—what should I say to come across as the perfect candidate?”
Candidates then show up almost perfectly prepared across the board. The same applies to CVs, which are often created or heavily edited by artificial intelligence.
TP: Can you recognise that?
MH: I don’t conduct interviews myself, but based on what we hear, the overall quality of candidates’ preparation and their answers has increased. Paradoxically, this trend actually reinforces the importance of psychodiagnostics, because AI can’t really influence it.
TP: So is it something like a lie detector or a truth test?
MH: It can be. You are actually helping me with that comparison, because in some methods we assess what we call ‘lie scores’ and also map the tendency toward stylisation.
In recruitment, it’s normal for candidates to want to present themselves in the best possible light. But when this becomes excessive—when someone starts stating obvious untruths or portraying themselves as flawless, someone who never makes mistakes, a kind of “perfect hero”—it’s important to recognise this and take it into account when interpreting the results, or in some cases not interpret them at all.
TP: How does AI help you in your everyday work, for example, in your studies?
MH: AI helps enormously in my studies, because studying involves reading a large number of research papers and articles, which is very time-consuming. Sometimes AI “pre-processes” the content, so I don’t have to read the entire study.
I then look up only what AI points me to or what it does not mention. I may realise that a certain piece of information is missing, return to the study, but I no longer have to read it word for word from start to finish.
TP: Which university do you study at?
MH: Masaryk University in Brno.
TP: And how does Masaryk University approach artificial intelligence in your field at the end of 2025?
MH: In some courses, the way they are completed has changed. Instead of essays and written papers, the focus is more on practical tasks. Personally, I see this as a positive effect of AI, because writing essays is not particularly practical.
At university, we’re actually glad that instead of essays we now have more practical assignments. The approach is very open—we’re allowed to use AI, and that’s fine. It’s clearly here to stay, so it doesn’t make sense to ignore it. What matters is transparency: when submitting work, we have to state how AI was used and for what purpose.
TP: This paradigm is clearly changing. How do lecturers respond to it?
MH: It varies. But most lecturers are completely fine with open disclosure of AI use. I believe they also understand that AI will be with us for a long time and that it should be integrated into education rather than completely excluded.
Future Trends: Identifying Counterproductive Work Behavior
TP: What are you currently working on at TCC online? What new things are you preparing for clients?
MH: At the moment, we are finalising an upgrade of the Managerial Style questionnaire, which will be completed after the New Year. In addition, we are developing a new method—a questionnaire called Work Attitudes.
This method was created in response to market demand, with the aim of identifying potential counterproductive behavior in the workplace before a candidate is hired.
TP: In what sense?
MH: It focuses on situations where an employee avoids work or shows low reliability.
TP: How do you see the future of psychodiagnostics over the next few years, perhaps in the medium term? What can still be improved? What do you think will be the key trends in your field?
MH: I don’t think it will change in any fundamental way, although of course nothing can be said with absolute certainty. What I do see, however, is a shift in certain areas—for example, the emergence of new models that allow overall candidate scores to be calculated more accurately.
This increases the precision of both information and results. I can also imagine that predictive models based on data—models that predict success in a specific role—will continue to gain importance. In other words, even more sophisticated and accurate Job Matching models.
