Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40351586›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Comparing chatbots to psychometric tests in hiring: reduced social desirability bias, but lower predictive validity.

Danilo Dukanovic, Dario Krpan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Danilo DukanovicDepartment of Psychological and Behavioural Science, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.
Dario KrpanDepartment of Psychological and Behavioural Science, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper explores the efficacy of AI-driven chatbots in accurately inferring personality traits compared to traditional psychometric tests within a real-world professional hiring context. The study is driven by the increasing integration of AI tools in recruitment processes, which necessitates a deeper understanding of their reliability and validity. Using a quasi-experimental design with propensity score matching, we analysed data from 159 candidates and other professionals from Serbian and Montenegrin regions who completed both traditional psychometric assessments and AI-based personality evaluations based on the Big Five Personality model. A novel one-question-per-facet approach was employed in the chatbot assessments with a goal of enabling more granular analysis of the chatbot's psychometric properties. The findings indicate that the chatbot demonstrated good structural, substantive, and convergent validity for certain traits, particularly Extraversion and Conscientiousness, but not for Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Openness. While robust regression confirmed that AI-inferred scores are less susceptible to social desirability bias than traditional tests, they did not significantly predict real-world outcomes, indicating issues with external validity, particularly predictive validity. The results suggest that AI-driven chatbots show promise for identifying certain personality traits and demonstrate resistance to social desirability bias. This paper contributes to the emerging field of AI and psychometrics by offering insights into the potential and limitations of AI tools in professional selection, while developing an approach for refining psychometric properties of AI-driven assessments.

Indexed as

AIbig fivechatbotshiringpersonalityprofessional selectionsocial desirability bias

Identifiers

PMID40351586
PMCPMC12061966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.