EB Career Test
1 Data Description and Example Career test scores
1.1 Reference Data frame with majors mapped to each question and Category
1.2 Data from 2 subjects
1.2.1 Subject 1: Original 60 questions Subject 1
1.2.2 Subject 2: Original and additional health questions
1.2.3 Category Scores
1.2.3.1 Subject 1: Summarized Category score Table
1.2.3.2 Subject 1: Flipped bar chart
1.2.3.3 Subject 1: Pie Chart of Interest Categories
1.2.3.4 Subject 1: All high scoring questions (score >= 4) across all categories
1.2.3.5 Subject 2: Summarized Category score Table
1.2.3.6 Subject 2: Flipped bar chart
1.2.3.7 Subject 2: Pie Chart of Interest Categories
1.3 Scoring System (Step-by-step)
1.3.1 Using Subject 1
1.3.1.1 Step 1: Identify top 2 scoring categories
[1] "ANALYTICAL_AND_INVESTIGATIVE" "ENTERPRISING_AND_LEADERSHIP" 1.3.1.2 Step 2: Get questions with score >= 4 in the top categories
[1] "Do you enjoy debating politics or getting involved in causes you care about?"
[2] "Are you into developing and testing new technologies and machines?"
[3] "Are you fascinated by historical and archaeological discoveries and research?"
[4] "Do you enjoy learning about the human body's biological systems and processes?"
[5] "Do you enjoy learning about stars, planets, and the vastness of space?"
[6] "Do you like managing projects and operations?"
[7] "Do you like solving complex puzzles or brain teasers?"
[8] "Are you curious about understanding chemical reactions and properties?"
[9] "Do you like the idea of developing business strategies?"
[10] "Do you like leading a team or a group of people?"
[11] "Do you enjoy handling money and budgets?"
[12] "Do you like the idea of legal work or helping people with their rights?"
[13] "Do you like the idea of starting your own business?"
[14] "Do you enjoy exploring the cultural and social aspects of human societies?" 1.3.1.3 Step 3: Map majors to high scoring questions in the top catgories
1.3.2 Using Subject 2
1.3.2.1 Step 1: Identify top 2 scoring categories
[1] "ENTERPRISING_AND_LEADERSHIP" "SOCIAL_AND_HELPING" 1.3.2.2 Step 2: Get questions with score >= 4 in the top categories
[1] "Do you enjoy convincing or persuading others?"
[2] "Do you enjoy caring for and medically treating animals?"
[3] "Do you enjoy volunteering for a humanitarian cause?"
[4] "Do you like managing projects and operations?"
[5] "Do you care about fairness and helping people who need it?"
[6] "Do you like the idea of starting your own business?"
[7] "Do you find the idea of helping people with their health interesting?"
[8] "Do you like assisting people with their problems?"
[9] "Do you enjoy teaching or helping others learn new things?"
[10] "Do you enjoy volunteering or helping out in your community?"
[11] "Do you like to lead negotiations and conflict resolution?"
[12] "Do you enjoy playing sports and promoting physical fitness?"
[13] "Do you like the idea of developing business strategies?"
[14] "Do you enjoy talking to people and helping them with their feelings?"
[15] "Do you like leading a team or a group of people?"
[16] "Do you enjoy leading group discussions or workshops?"
[17] "Do you like staying updated on the latest designs and fashion trends?"
[18] "Do you like the idea of helping people overcome physical challenges from injuries?"1.3.2.3 Step 3: Map majors to high scoring questions in the top catgories
2 Diagnostic Analysis of the Career Test Structure
2.1 Total number of unique majors mapped to all questions
# A tibble: 1 × 1
num_unique_majors
<int>
1 1142.2 Frequency Distribution: Number of Majors Mapped per Question (67 questions)
2.3 Number of Unique majors per Category
2.4 Most Frequently Occurring Majors Across All Questions from All Categories
2.5 Majors Mapped to More Than One Interest Category
2.7 Simulate Test Scores
3 Fine-tuning Steps
Fewer more tailored major options for students.
- the majority of students are being matched with over 40 (from 112, now 113) majors.
Map new majors to questions (nutrition, sports related options, electrical engineering).
- I already found sports-related options and just added nutrtion to the same (but modified question).
- added electrical engineering to a broad engineering question.
- Refer to sheets.
Take a closer look at the Social and Helping logic, as nearly 50% of users are matching with that category (refer to the section above).
Improve the generated career report (refer to the section below)
3.1 Suggestions to limit majors
Modify scoring scale from 1-5 to 1-10 then selecting questions with high interest (>=8 or >=9)
Reduce number of questions (Not done, consider in case rescoring doesn’t work)
Reduce the number of majors mapped to each question (especially the repeated ones across different questions). (Not done, consider in case rescoring doesn’t work)
4 Career Aptitude Assessment Report - Feedback
Professional Test Interpretation (page 3)
- The current format places too much emphasis on the primary aptitude/interest category, with following paragraphs describing the others solely through the lens of the top scoring category. I would leave the opening paragraph as is but modify the rest to be more integrated - combining carer options aligning with both top scoring categories.
Suggested Rewrite Structure:
a. Open with the primary aptitude (as it is most dominant).
b. Follow with the secondary aptitude as a complementary strength.
c. Briefly describe tertiary aptitudes (only if they contribute meaningfully or have a high score)
d. Conclude with career pathways that reflect a blend of top aptitudes.
Modified Example:
- The current format places too much emphasis on the primary aptitude/interest category, with following paragraphs describing the others solely through the lens of the top scoring category. I would leave the opening paragraph as is but modify the rest to be more integrated - combining carer options aligning with both top scoring categories.
” Lyne Jradi exhibits a dominantaptitude in the Creative & Artistic domain, highlighting a natural affinity for imagination, visual expression, and innovative problem-solving. This strength suggests a strong potential in fields where originality and aesthetic sensibility are key — such as animation, fine arts, and performance-based disciplines. Complementing this creative aptitude is a secondary strength in the Social & Helping category, reflecting Lyne’s strong interpersonal awareness and ability to connect with others through communication, empathy, and collaboration. This combination may be especially valuable in roles that involve engaging audiences, working in teams, or conveying stories and messages through art. Additionally, Lyne shows a moderate interest in Analytical & Investigative domains, indicating comfort with logical reasoning and an ability to approach tasks with thoughtful curiosity — a trait that can enhance storytelling, design structure, and critical analysis in creative work.
Based on these results, Lyne’s profile points toward career pathways that blend artistic expression, social engagement, and structured problem-solving.
Fields such as …. leverage Lyne’s creative strengths while also allowing for the integration of social and analytical skills, positioning them for success in dynamic and expressive fields. ”
Aptitude Measurement: Profile Shape (page 4)
- I really like the aptitude measurement radar chart, but the accompanying score interpretation table needs revision. The interpretation across different scores is too similar and uses identical phrasings for high and low scores.
- For example, strong or high aptitude was used for both highest scoring and lowest scoring categories.
- “High aptitude” in the Organizational category doesn’t match the lower score (2.6/5).
- We could rephrase based on the score and its position/rank. For example:
- I really like the aptitude measurement radar chart, but the accompanying score interpretation table needs revision. The interpretation across different scores is too similar and uses identical phrasings for high and low scores.
Detailed Score Breakdown & Interpretation
| Category | Score | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Creative & Artistic | 4.5 / 5 | Excellent aptitude for creative expression, innovation, and artistic problem solving. |
| Social & Helping | 4.0 / 5 | Strong interest in working with people and supporting others through communication and care. |
| Analytical & Investigative | 3.2 / 5 | Moderate analytical inclination; comfortable with logical reasoning and exploration. |
| Enterprising & Leadership | 2.8 / 5 | Limited interest in leadership roles or persuasion-focused environments. |
| Conventional & Organizational | 2.6 / 5 | Limited preference for structured, rule-based, or detail-heavy tasks. |
We could also consider using a rubric to standardize this based on score ranges:
| Score Range | Interpretation Label | Example Phrases |
|---|---|---|
| 4.5 – 5.0 | Excellent | “Excellent aptitude for…”, “Highly engaged with…”, “Exceptional fit for…” |
| 4.0 – 4.4 | Strong | “Strong interest in…”, “Demonstrates strong potential in…”, “High affinity for…” |
| 3.0 – 3.9 | Moderate | “Moderate inclination toward…”, “Some interest in…”, “Comfortable with…” |
| 2.0 – 2.9 | Limited | “Limited interest in…”, “May prefer other types of tasks than…”, “Less drawn to…” |
| 1.0 – 1.9 | Low | “Low engagement with…”, “Minimal preference for…”, “Unlikely to be drawn to…” |
Recommended Fields of Study (page 5)
We should ensure consistent use of tone and pronouns throughout the report.
For example, some sections refer to the candidate by name (e.g., “Lyne”), while others use “you” or “the participant.”
“Based on your strong aptitude in Creative & Artistic, the following fields of study align well with your profile”.
We should decide whether the report should adopt a personal tone (e.g., “you”) or a professional, third-person style.
Career Domain Alignment (page 7)
The Top Career Match “10/10” is unclear and potentially misleading
The scoring system used for match (e.g., Animator = 10/10) is not explained.
It is also a bit presumptuous to assume a perfect match or level of certainty.
Recommendation: Removing the “10/10 match”.
Key response pattern insights (pages 9-10)
- This section adds little value and risks oversimplifying how aptitude categories are formed.
- It may also confuse participants if questions shown don’t clearly align with career outcomes previously presented (e.g., animation mentioned as a top career, but not visible in the response pattern).
- Recommendation: I would remove this last section entirely or replace it with a more meaningful summary.
- This section adds little value and risks oversimplifying how aptitude categories are formed.