A live psychometric panel, open to research
775,367 completed assessments across 220 countries and territories in 40 languages, still growing every hour. Use the published aggregates, ask for computed results and reports, or build a bid around it.
- 775,367
- Completed results
- 205
- Instruments
- 40
- Languages
- 220
- Countries & territories
Live count, refreshed hourly. The figure to cite is the dated snapshot — 671,760 results on 2026-09-30, covering 2026-02-22 to 2026-09-30 — because a number quoted without its date cannot be reconciled once the corpus has grown. 23 of the 205 published instruments are built on peer-reviewed frameworks; the rest are labelled as entertainment on their own pages and are not mixed into anything scientific. Reliability is published per scale, including the scales that score badly.
Three ways this usually works
Human baselines for model evaluation
A model score is meaningless without a human distribution behind it. We hold one across cognitive and non-cognitive instruments with published internal-consistency reliability, in many languages, at a scale where per-item and per-country comparisons are actually powered.
Fits — AI evaluation, human-versus-model benchmarking, cross-lingual capability work
Joint grant applications
Funders ask for an industry partner with real infrastructure and real users. We bring the panel, the instruments, the engineering and the deployment surface; the university brings the research lead and the scientific design. We have no interest in being named on a bid we are not doing the work for.
Fits — Innovate UK, KTP, Horizon-style collaborative bids, doctoral funding
Computed results and reports
The aggregates and the two frozen response datasets are already published. Beyond those we provide computed results and reports only, with the metadata needed to reproduce a published figure.
Fits — Replication work, cross-cultural comparison of published figures
What this sample is, and is not
It is a convenience sample. Respondents chose to take a test on a public website: self-selected, unproctored, unpaid, not quota-balanced on age, sex, education or country. It supports measurement work, cross-cultural comparison and item analysis. It does not support population prevalence estimates, and we will say so in writing if a design depends on one.
Geography is session-level. Country comes from the IP address of an anonymous session that completed at least one test — not a declared nationality. VPNs, travel and shared connections are all in there, and one person can appear as several sessions.
The counters do not all reconcile. Stored results and instrumentation events are separate tables counting different things, and we publish which is which rather than picking whichever is larger. The corpus passport names the source and the pull date for every figure.
Data governance
How the data is handled
- No names, emails or free text in anything published
- Row-level security on every table; no aggregate exposes a row
The published aggregates are CC BY 4.0 and need no agreement to reuse; cite us. Licence and attribution line. Beyond them we provide computed results and reports only.
What we ask for
- Co-authorship where we did the work — not honorary authorship
- Attribution when our data appears in a published figure
- The right to cite the findings in our own methodology
- Advance sight of a release, not approval over conclusions
We do not ask for editorial control, including over findings that are unflattering to our instruments. A partner who cannot publish a negative result is not a research partner.
Common questions
What data can a university get from JobCannon?
The public aggregates (scale, distributions, reliability, geography, completion times) and the published datasets need no agreement at all and are already on this site. Beyond those we provide computed results and reports only.
Is JobCannon data suitable for peer-reviewed research?
It is a large, multilingual convenience sample from self-administered, unproctored assessments — appropriate for measurement work, cross-cultural comparison and item analysis, and inappropriate for population prevalence estimates. Internal-consistency reliability is published per scale for 20 instruments (recomputed 2026-09-30), so the measurement properties can be checked before a study is designed rather than after it is reviewed.
What does JobCannon want in return?
Scientific rigour we cannot supply ourselves, and citation. Concretely: co-authorship where we did the work, the instrument or the findings being usable in our own published methodology, and attribution when our data appears in yours. We do not ask for editorial control over conclusions, including conclusions that are unflattering to our instruments.
How is respondent privacy handled?
Nothing identifying leaves the platform. Free text and contact details are never published, and geography is session-level and IP-derived rather than a declared nationality. Every published aggregate on this site is computed over counts, and no page exposes a single respondent row.
How do we start a research collaboration?
Start with an email describing what you need — that is enough to say yes, no, or "not in that form" quickly.
Tell us what you need
One email with what you want to show, and which published figures or computed results would help, is enough for us to say yes, no, or “not in that form” by email. If the answer is no, you will get the reason rather than a follow-up sequence.
Institutional licensing and classroom deployment are a different conversation — see the institutional pages. How the instruments are built and validated: methodology.