Changing Your Mind: Evidence Response at WorkChanging Your Mind at Work. Open-mindedness and suggestibility look identical until you balance the trials.
You commit to ten calls. Then each one comes back carrying something new. Five of those things genuinely change the answer. Five are the ones that only feel like they should - and that is the whole measurement.
A matched pre and post instrument, inside one sitting
Catalogues sell snapshots. Almost nothing on the market is built as a matched instrument with a defensible statistic for how one person changed, and the ones that try measure change between two sittings months apart, where half the movement is measurement error drawn as an arrow. This one makes the change happen inside the sitting. Block A asks for ten commitments on the information in front of you, with no hint that anything will follow. Block B brings the same ten cases back, each carrying one new thing.
The trial set is balanced, and that is the design. Five cases carry diagnostic evidence: a date that does not fit the story, what the last three attempts actually took, the same fault appearing on two other shifts, two reference checks, a measurement three months after the training. Five carry information that is persuasive and carries nothing: a director's feeling, three colleagues with a bad impression and nothing specific, an angry message that repeats itself, twelve years of service with no figures behind it, one vivid bad day against three weeks of data. In an unbalanced design, where every revision trial rewards moving, somebody who revises on everything scores the same as somebody who discriminates. Here they do not. Always-revise and never-revise both score zero by construction.
Movement between the two blocks is then held to a reliable-change test. A shift too small to distinguish from this instrument's own measurement error is drawn flat and greyed, with a dashed rule and a caption saying so, rather than as an arrow. That is unusual and it is deliberate: a progress report that dramatises noise is telling you about the instrument and calling it your achievement.
What you walk away with
Gain where the evidence warranted a move, plus gain where it did not, so that revising on everything and revising on nothing both come out at zero.
Your commitment score and your revised score, with the movement drawn only if it exceeds this instrument's measurement error - and drawn flat and captioned if it does not.
Held when you should have moved, and moved when you should have held, with the combined figure given the final say over the verdict.
The five that warranted a move and the five that did not, each with what you actually did and whether it was the right call.
Seniority, agreement without specifics, volume, long service, one vivid story. The report names the one that moved you, which is the whole use of it.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample - your report is generated from your own responses.
Built for
- Leadership and management development programmes where decision quality is the outcome
- Professionals who make calls other people act on, in any function
- Employers screening for judgment under disagreement rather than for confidence
Find out whether you change your mind for evidence or for pressure
34 scored exercises - about 40 minutes - a full bespoke report with your Revision Index, a reliable-change gate on the movement, both errors counted apart and the ten cases laid out side by side.
₹999 (incl. GST) · assessment and full report, nothing further to pay
Frequently asked questions
Whether you revise a stated position when the new information is diagnostic, and hold it when the new information is merely persuasive. Those two things are the same construct measured from opposite ends, and almost every instrument on the market measures only the first, which is why open-mindedness and suggestibility come out identical. Four capabilities are reported: the quality of your first call, moving when it is warranted, holding when it is not, and how you tell people you have changed your mind.
Because without it the score is meaningless. If every revision opportunity rewards moving, then somebody who moves on everything scores as highly as somebody who can tell diagnostic evidence from social pressure. Here five cases warrant a move and five do not, the split is verified from the answer keys on every build rather than taken on the author's word, and the index adds your gain on both sets - so always-revise and never-revise both land on zero.
It is the standard for calling an individual movement larger than measurement error. Your commitment score and your revised score are compared against the standard deviation and reliability of the first block, and a movement that fails the test is drawn flat and greyed with a dashed rule and captioned within measurement error, rather than as an arrow. The standard deviation and reliability are currently estimated by simulation rather than measured on people, and the report says so on the page rather than in a footnote.
About 40 minutes for 34 scored exercises. You get a bespoke delta ledger: your Revision Index, the before-and-after gated by the reliable-change test, the two halves of the index shown separately, both errors counted apart with the combined figure deciding the verdict, the ten cases in two columns with your verdict on each, four capability classifications and one if-then change. Downloadable as a colour PDF that also reads in black and white.
Rs 999 in India including GST, or US$9.99 elsewhere, one time, for one full sitting and report. Critical-thinking tests sold to employers are annual subscriptions and score reasoning rather than revision; consumer personality products in this space run from US$9 to US$59 and measure self-reported openness, which is a different thing from what you do when a director disagrees with you. Organisations can use AssessAll credits at 26 credits per person.
Each one takes a single capability, puts you inside the situations where it is actually tested, and scores your choices against published evidence — with a report designed for that capability alone, not a template. They span hiring, compliance, education, operations and personal skill.
Browse the catalogue →Methodology: Measures applied evidence response through an original matched commitment-and-revision design keyed to published constructs. Construct statement: it measures whether a person revises a stated position when the new information is diagnostic and holds it when the new information is merely persuasive. It does not measure intelligence, decisiveness, domain expertise, or the accuracy of a first instinct. Declared response instruction: behavioural tendency throughout - every stem asks what the respondent would actually do. Sources drawn on across the construct area: belief-updating research and the finding that conservatism and over-correction are separate failures that a one-sided design cannot tell apart; the balanced-trial requirement, in which half the trials warrant a move and half do not, so that always-revise and never-revise both score zero; confirmation-bias and selective-exposure work on the asymmetric scrutiny given to unwelcome evidence; the diagnosticity principle, that a finding is worth its weight only if it could have come out the other way; base-rate neglect and the inside-view work on estimation, in which what similar work actually took outperforms what this team expects; informational versus normative social influence, and the finding that agreement without specifics carries no information; authority and expertise research distinguishing experience as a source of questions from experience as an answer; the vividness and availability literature on a single detailed case outweighing an aggregate; sunk-cost and escalation-of-commitment research; the absence-of-evidence fallacy in group decision making; individual versus systemic attribution after error, and the evidence that repeated occurrence across people relocates the explanation to the work; reaction-level versus behaviour-level training evaluation and the repeated finding that satisfaction ratings do not predict behaviour change; the reliable-change index as the standard for calling an individual movement larger than measurement error; and situational-judgment-test validity with behavioural-tendency response instructions. All items are original works. No trademarked instrument is reproduced and no affiliation with any of the sources above is claimed. Scores are provisional: the standard deviation and reliability used in the reliable-change test, and the base rates used for chance correction, are authored priors estimated by simulation under the declared response marginals, are published in the report, and are to be replaced by observed values once live data exists.