What this is based on

Every source below was checked against the publisher record.

Research the design rests on

• Zell, E., & Krizan, Z. (2014). Do people have insight into their abilities? A metasynthesis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 111–125. doi:10.1177/1745691613518075

  Across 22 meta-analyses, self-evaluations of ability correlate with objective performance at about r = .29 — real but moderate. This is why Part 2 decides emphasis only, never whether a learner may proceed.

• Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

  Self-rating is least accurate exactly where this project works — among people with the least experience of the domain. Part 3 exists as the counterweight, because it asks what somebody would do rather than what they think of themselves.

• McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001). Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 730–740. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.730

  Situational judgement tests predict job performance at ρ = .34 across 102 coefficients and 10,640 people. That is the evidence behind Part 3, and behind writing the wrong options to be plausible rather than silly.

• Nye, C. D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Vocational interests and performance: A quantitative summary of over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 384–403. doi:10.1177/1745691612449021

  Interest relates to both performance and persistence. For learners who choose whether to continue, what somebody wants matters as much as what they can already do — which is why Part 1 comes first, and why it opens with wants rather than gaps.

• Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 349–360. doi:10.1093/poq/nfp031

  Longer questionnaires lower participation, and answers late in a long instrument are measurably worse. The partner draft ran to 75 items; an abandoned questionnaire yields nothing, so this one is 28.

Frameworks and standards

• DigComp 2.2 — European Digital Competence Framework Joint Research Centre · The eight skill areas, and the language used for them.
• ESCO — European Skills, Competences and Occupations European Commission · The four job profiles, and the real skill set behind each one.
• The eight EQF levels Europass · The suggested starting level, 3 to 5.
• Council Recommendation on micro-credentials (2022) Council of the European Union · The eleven elements a credential has to record.
• Skills intelligence Cedefop · Which of these occupations are in demand, by country.
• WCAG 2.2 W3C · The accessibility standard the online version is built to.

What it is not

It is a routing and starting-point tool, not a test, a qualification, an aptitude measure or a filter. Nothing is marked, no path is closed, and every path begins at Lesson 1 whatever the result. Eight goal questions cannot capture a working life; somebody with a clear preference the tool did not ask about should follow it. The Part 3 situations are drawn from the ReSTART courses, so they favour a learner who has already met that material — and at intake, nobody has. A trainer should treat the result as the start of a conversation, not its conclusion.