Research

Technical Manual

How the PSI captures evidence, calculates scores, and measures change

Assessment design

The PSI uses five kinds of evidence: responses to social video, expression recognition, spoken responses, written responses, and self-perception prompts. No single format can show the full range of a person's people skills. Using several formats shows both what the person notices and how they respond. The assessment takes about 30 minutes.

Assessment partCurrent formWhat the participant doesSkills scored
Rapid social judgmentsFour situations drawn from a bank of 12; about six minutesWatch a short social moment, replay it if needed, and answer in 2–4 sentencesAll seven skills
Cue-reading accuracyEight expression clips; about four minutesSelect the expression shown in each clipSituational Radar
Spoken impactTwo situations drawn from a bank of five; about five minutesPrepare for up to 30 seconds and record a voicemail of up to 60 secondsSix skills; Situational Radar comes from the video and expression tasks
Social writingFour situations drawn from a bank of nine; about eight minutesWrite a natural interpersonal messageFive skills; Situational Radar and Emotional Regulation come from other tasks
Self-perception calibration30 prompts; about six minutesRate 21 skill behaviors, answer seven perspective questions, and select two style descriptionsSelf-perception and context only

The first four parts produce the performance scores. Self-perception stays separate. A high or low self-rating cannot change the person's performance result.

What stays consistent

Two people may not receive the same situations. The situations come from the same banks, and PSI uses the same behavior criteria, answer keys, and formulas at baseline and reassessment.

Score construction

How each response is scored

Which parts contribute to each performance score

SkillRapid social judgmentsCue-reading accuracySpoken impactSocial writing
Situational RadarYesYes
Emotional RegulationYesYes
Outcome OwnershipYesYesYes
Adaptive AgilityYesYesYes
Strategic ClarityYesYesYes
Relational WarmthYesYesYes
Diplomatic AssertivenessYesYesYes

From evidence to the overall result

  1. Each assessment part produces a score for every skill it measures.
  2. For each skill, PSI takes the arithmetic mean of the scores from the performance parts.
  3. The overall PSI is the arithmetic mean of the seven performance skill scores.
  4. The self-perception score is the arithmetic mean of the seven self-ratings. It stays separate from the overall PSI.
  5. The awareness gap is self-perception minus demonstrated performance.
BandRangeMeaning
Developing0–59The responses show behaviors the person can build.
Capable60–79The responses are generally effective but still show specific ways to improve.
Mastery80–100The responses show clear, consistent use of the skill.

A score of 100 means the submitted responses did not show a behavior that needs improvement. It does not promise perfect performance in every situation. PSI reports whole numbers, so a one-point difference may not be meaningful.

The seven skills

People skills work in a sequence. Input is what a person notices. Process is what they do with that information. Output is what they say or do next and how the response comes across.

StageSkillWhat effective responses show
InputSituational RadarNotices the context, relevant cues, and unspoken dynamics before choosing a response.
ProcessEmotional RegulationStays composed under pressure without avoiding the issue.
ProcessOutcome OwnershipTakes responsibility and proposes a clear next step to repair the problem.
ProcessAdaptive AgilityAdjusts tone, detail, and strategy for the person, context, and stakes.
OutputStrategic ClarityGives enough context, states the position or ask, and makes the next action clear.
OutputRelational WarmthAcknowledges the other person's experience in a specific, genuine way before moving to a solution.
OutputDiplomatic AssertivenessStates a clear need or boundary while protecting the working relationship.

Reading the results

A practitioner might say, "This result shows how you responded to these situations. Let's look for a pattern, see whether it matches your experience, and choose one behavior to practice."

When self-perception is higher than demonstrated performance, the awareness gap is positive. When performance is higher, the gap is negative. Either result can start a useful conversation about the person's experience.

Reassessment and progress

The first completed PSI is the baseline. The most recent PSI is the current result. To calculate change, subtract the baseline score from the current score. This requires two completed assessments.

On reassessment, the person responds to new situations from the same banks. PSI uses the same scoring criteria and formulas. A higher score means the later responses showed more of the scored behavior. The difference is the measured change between the two assessments.

If the score stays flat or falls, compare the two sets of responses. Check whether the practice matched the target skill before deciding what to change.

Research foundation

PSI areaResearch foundation
Situational RadarRapid social judgment and the interpretation of brief interpersonal cues
Emotional RegulationHow people monitor and change emotional responses
Relational WarmthBrief interpersonal signals and first impressions
Diplomatic AssertivenessDirect, relationship-preserving communication and assertiveness training
Development and reassessmentLeadership training, teamwork training, and workplace soft-skills training
Assessment methodProfessional testing standards and current evidence on assessment validity

A randomized field study by Adhvaryu, Kala, and Nyshadham found a 258% net return to the employer eight months after workplace soft-skills training ended. PSI lets organizations record a baseline, choose a development target, and compare it with a later result.

Data practices

PSI uses written responses, answer selections, task audio, and self-ratings to produce the report. Participants can replay the video situations. PSI does not record participant video. The current Privacy Policy explains collection, access, retention, and deletion.

Selected references

World Economic Forum (2025). Future of Jobs Report 2025.

Deming, D. J. (2017). The growing importance of social skills in the labor market. Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin.

Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science.

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology.

Lacerenza, C. N., et al. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology.

McEwan, D., et al. (2017). The effectiveness of teamwork training on teamwork behaviors and team performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE.

Speed, B. C., Goldstein, B. L., & Goldfried, M. R. (2018). Assertiveness training: A forgotten evidence-based treatment. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice.

Adhvaryu, A., Kala, N., & Nyshadham, A. (2018). The skills to pay the bills: Returns to on-the-job soft skills training. NBER Working Paper 24313.

Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.