Psychometric Testing & Assessment Accreditation Committee
The committee responsible for safeguarding the technical quality, fairness, responsible use, and credibility of psychometric tests and assessment systems reviewed under IIBP standards.
Purpose of the Committee
The Psychometric Testing and Assessment Accreditation Committee exists to ensure that tests, inventories, questionnaires, assessment batteries, and related assessment systems reviewed under IIBP are judged with technical rigor, professional independence, and practical relevance.
The committee serves as the governance body that oversees standards, technical review quality, reviewer discipline, and accreditation decision-making. Its role is not to endorse products on the basis of popularity or commercial presence, but to determine whether a test or assessment system demonstrates adequate evidence of quality for responsible use.
This committee protects both the public and professional users by ensuring that psychometric tools are evaluated on evidence, not claims.
What the Committee Governs
- Psychometric review standards and criteria interpretation
- Technical review quality and reviewer calibration
- Evidence requirements for test publishers and assessment providers
- Decisions on accreditation and review outcomes
- Conditions, limitations, and monitoring expectations
- Protection of fairness, confidentiality, and impartiality
Who This Committee Serves
- Test publishers and assessment developers
- HR and talent assessment users
- Psychologists, consultants, and assessment specialists
- Organizations seeking confidence in test quality
- Buyers evaluating assessment tools before adoption
- Stakeholders concerned with ethical and fair testing practice
Committee Members
VP & Head of Committee
Dr. Anamika Sharma
Dr. Anamika Sharma is a psychologist, coach, behaviour coach, mentor, and Hogan Assessments practitioner with over 18 years of consulting experience. She is experienced across talent management and strategy roadmap, organizational design and development, talent assessment, development and retention, behaviour change management, strategy, and analytics.
Members of CAPT
- Dr. Shalini Duggal
- Dr. Vishal Sangale
- Dr. Shilpa Datar
- Dr. Nathan Thompson
- Tanvi Chaturvedi
Core Standards Reviewed by the Committee
1. Purpose and Intended Use
The committee reviews whether the test has a clearly defined purpose, appropriate target population, and justified use case. A tool should not be represented as suitable for decisions or populations that are not supported by evidence.
2. Technical Foundation
The committee evaluates the conceptual model, scale structure, test blueprint, scoring method, and technical rationale behind the assessment. Clear theory and sound construction are expected.
3. Reliability
The committee examines the consistency of scores, including internal consistency, stability where relevant, and other evidence that the assessment produces dependable measurement.
4. Validity
The committee reviews evidence that the assessment supports the interpretations and decisions claimed for it. This may include content, construct, criterion-related, convergent, discriminant, and practical use evidence.
5. Norms and Benchmarking
Where norms or comparative benchmarks are used, the committee assesses their adequacy, relevance, currency, and fit to the populations for which the tool is marketed.
6. Fairness and Bias Considerations
The committee evaluates whether the assessment demonstrates fairness in use and whether the publisher has considered language, accessibility, subgroup differences, adverse impact, and other bias-related issues where relevant.
7. Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation
The committee reviews whether instructions, administration conditions, scoring procedures, and interpretation guidance are sufficiently clear to support responsible and consistent use.
8. Ethics, Security, and Responsible Use
The committee reviews the ethical safeguards surrounding the tool, including test security, confidentiality, user qualifications, transparency of claims, and protections against misuse.
How the Review Process Works
The applicant submits the technical manual, sample reports, administration materials, scoring information, norm documentation, research summaries, and all other evidence required for review.
The submission is checked for completeness, relevance, and basic review readiness. Missing or insufficient documentation may be flagged before full review begins.
Reviewers assess the evidence against the standards, examine technical documentation, and evaluate the strength of claims being made about the tool.
The committee or reviewers may seek clarification, additional technical evidence, or explanations regarding scoring, validation studies, use conditions, or fairness issues.
The committee evaluates reviewer findings, considers the evidence base, and determines whether the test or assessment system has met the required threshold for recognition.
The final decision is issued with any applicable conditions, limitations, or recommendations. Accredited tools may be subject to review updates if material changes occur.
What Applicants Should Understand Before Applying
This is not a branding exercise. The committee expects serious technical documentation and honest representation of what the tool can and cannot support.
- Strong claims require strong evidence
- Reliability alone is not enough without validity
- Norms are not automatically transferable across populations
- Marketing language will be examined against technical documentation
- Responsible use guidance matters as much as technical statistics
- Missing documentation weakens credibility, even where the tool appears promising
Role of Reviewers Supporting the Committee
The committee relies on technically competent reviewers to analyse submissions, evaluate evidence quality, and identify gaps, limitations, and strengths.
Reviewers are expected to work with professional independence, technical discipline, and awareness of the consequences of poor assessment practice. They must disclose conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
Reviewer input informs the committee, but final authority remains with the committee itself.
Next Steps
Publishers, developers, and assessment providers seeking recognition should begin by reviewing the applicable standards, gathering technical evidence, and preparing a complete submission.
The strongest submissions are those that are technically transparent, modest in unsupported claims, and clear about the use conditions under which the tool should be applied.
Review the psychometric test review standards, prepare your technical documentation, and submit your assessment for committee-led accreditation review.
Have an enquiry?
Reach out to us!
Email us at [email protected]