Ethical distinctions in personnel selection: Personality questionnaires and tests of general cognitive ability measure the present, not the future

Key digested message Personality questionnaires and tests of general cognitive ability (GCA) are among the most evidence-based tools available for personnel selection. Yet they are increasingly marketed not only as measures of psychological constructs but as competency frameworks adaptable to organisations’ proprietary models. This obscures a foundational distinction: the difference between predictors – what a questionnaire or test measures now – and criteria – the future outcomes it is used to predict. Collapsing this distinction produces logically impossible procurement requirements, misrepresents what quality frameworks such as the EFPA Test Review Model actually evaluate and undermines evidence-based selection practice. It also raises a distinct ethical concern: When an instrument is reviewed and approved on the basis of what it genuinely measures, but subsequently marketed as something it does not, the result is a misuse of scientific credibility that affects candidates, practitioners, and organisations alike. This article clarifies the predictor–criterion distinction, illustrates where it is commonly blurred and draws out practical implications.