Property Advisory and Client Handling Assessment for Real Estate Agents, Brokers and Sales TeamsA client, a vendor and a deadline pulling three ways. Which one do you reach for first?
Fourteen forced choices, each with four things a capable agent would genuinely do: ask what they can borrow, tell them about the leak, set out what actually happens next, or put it in writing. None of them is the nice answer. You mark the one you are most likely to do and the one you are least likely to do, and the form reads your order. Nine described situations, four select-every-action exercises and fourteen self-checks sit around them. Your report writes every finding twice from one set of answers — once to you, once to whoever runs your desk — and only your column is on your copy.
A property assessment that reads which defensible move you reach for first, not whether you know the right answer
The Property Advisory and Client Handling Assessment is a thirty-minute forced-choice instrument for anybody who advises on property. It reads which of four leanings an agent reaches for first: qualifying before showing, saying the unwelcome thing accurately, setting expectations that survive the transaction, and keeping the record. Fourteen matched blocks, twenty-seven supporting exercises, no pass mark and no licence.
Most property tests are a knowledge quiz with one right answer and three fillers, which anybody with a week of training can pass. This one takes the fillers away. Each block puts four actions in front of you that a competent agent could defend out loud, matched so that no single one is the obviously decent-sounding choice, and asks only which you would reach for first and which last. There is no pattern to spot. What the form reads is your order.
That order is scored as a quasi-ipsative forced-choice tendency index. Your most and least picks give every statement its pairwise win score, and each statement carries a declared value saying how defensible that act was in that particular situation. Because those values differ by leaning and by block, the four maxima are not equal, so the result survives being compared with somebody else's as well as with your own other three. The count of how often you put each leaning first is printed too, separately, labelled as the reading that only works within you.
Zero on every scale is a real person, not a coin. Each block declares the shares that people actually pick, and zero is what a respondent scores whose two picks are drawn from those shares. A prior-drawing respondent run through the instrument's own builder four hundred times lands at about one point away from zero, which is what a chance correction is supposed to do and what a raw percentage never does.
Fourteen blocks is fewer than the thirty the forced-choice research asks for, and the report says so in plain words rather than hoping nobody asks. Two things follow. The bands are wide and drawn wide on purpose, both the sixty-eight and the ninety-five per cent span, on the chart you are actually looking at. And the reliability decides what gets a number at all: a leaning read from too few answered blocks carries a placement in words, with the refusal printed in the place the figure would have taken instead of a caveat beside it.
The report is the two-column translation. Every finding exists once as a sentence to you and once as a sentence to whoever runs your desk, generated from the same row and the same placement so the two can never drift apart. The manager column is removed from the data before your copy is built, not merely hidden while it is drawn, and your copy says so and says who can see it. It carries no risk flag, no inferred trait and no note on how you answered — it is the same finding, turned into something a principal can act on.
Nothing turns on one country's rules. No statute, authority, regulator, registration scheme, professional body, portal, developer, franchise or training scheme is named anywhere, prices are described in relative terms rather than any currency, and where a registration or disclosure regime matters it is referred to generically — because a single global key on one jurisdiction's law measures where you live rather than how you judge. No option turns on a stereotype about a buyer's community, family structure, religion or income.
What you walk away with
Four findings, lowest first. Each one carries a placement, a mark and a word, its sixty-eight and ninety-five per cent bands, what that leaning gets you, what the same thing costs when it runs long, and the block where your order and the form's differed most — with the situation, what you put first, what you put last and what the form put first.
A two-sided ledger of the blocks you answered: how often you put each leaning first to the right of the spine, how often you put it last to the left, and hollow marks showing how often the form itself keyed it first or last. It is labelled as a within-person reading, because the counts sum to a constant however you answer.
The caller who wants a viewing this evening; the buyer on their sixth Saturday with no proof of funds; the relative abroad who will pay; the investor who wants four tenanted flats in one afternoon; the vendor whose reason for selling nobody has asked about.
The leak the vendor asked you to keep quiet about; the offer nobody has made; the previous sale that fell through on survey; the floor area that is smaller than the figure the vendor has used for years; the short-stay rental in the flat above.
The first-time buyer asking when they get the keys; the vendor who wants a six-week promise on a four-month street; the applicant arranging a move around your answer; two identical offers and a rule nobody has published.
The repair agreed by telephone with no note; the shed somebody thinks was promised; the three buyers who asked for the same update; the two requests you agreed at the end of a viewing and the day that is about to end.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
Where a block offered the written version, you tended to choose something more active. It works while you remember, and the deals it fails on are the ones you were not in the room for.
This adviser carries the transaction in their head and will carry it well until they are away. Ask for the written note rather than the verbal update.
You move fast and settle things in the conversation rather than in a queue of messages.
Anything agreed only in conversation has no version anybody can check, and the first dispute is decided by whoever sounds more certain.
You set out what happens next where the block made it the plain answer and reassured where the conversation was harder. Your expectation-setting is strongest in week one and thinnest in the weeks a client is actually anxious.
This adviser sets expectations well at the start. Ask them to name the next reporting date at every stage, not only at instruction.
Your clients start a transaction knowing what happens next, which is more than most of them have had before.
An expectation set once at the beginning decays, and the weeks it decays in are the weeks somebody is deciding whether to trust you.
| Leaning | Figure | 68% band | 95% band | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Follow-through and records | -24 | -41 to -7 | -57 to 9 | ▼ Leans on this less than the typical respondent |
| Expectation setting | 4 | -13 to 21 | -29 to 37 | ▬ Leans on this about as much as the typical respondent |
| Accuracy and disclosure | 31 | 14 to 48 | -2 to 64 | ▲ Leans on this more than the typical respondent |
| Qualifying before showing | □ No figure: too few blocks answered to clear the omega floor — a placement in words instead | |||
How the second column works: both sentences come from one row and one placement, so they cannot drift apart the way two separately written reports do. On a real candidate copy the desk column is removed from the data before the page is built — it is greyed here only to show you it exists. It carries no risk flag, no inferred trait and no note on how you answered.
| Leaning | You put it first | You put it last | Form keyed it first | Form keyed it last |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qualifying before showing | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Accuracy and disclosure | 6 | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Expectation setting | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Follow-through and records | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Total | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 |
Why this is printed separately: the four counts add up to the number of blocks you answered however you answered them, so this ledger can only be read within you and never against somebody else. The four figures in the other panel are the between-person reading, and they are not the same object. A reader who put one leaning first in every single block has no shape to draw, and the ledger is withheld in words rather than drawn as a profile our arithmetic invented.
Built for
- Estate agents and brokers on a sales or lettings desk who want a read on their own order of moves rather than a score on a knowledge quiz
- Agency principals and sales managers who need a brief on how to work with a new adviser, written from the same evidence the adviser is reading
- Channel-partner and developer sales teams whose people are trained on product and never on qualifying, disclosure or record-keeping
- Trainers running an induction who want a jurisdiction-neutral instrument with a printed refusal of everything it did not measure
- Anybody moving into property advice from another sales role who wants to know which of the four habits they already have
Find out which of the four you reach for first
41 exercises across five formats · about 30 minutes · fourteen matched forced choices, four findings each written twice, a lean ledger, and every figure corrected against a respondent answering the way people actually answer.
₹499 (incl. GST) · assessment and full report, nothing further to pay
Frequently asked questions
No, and it names no law. It is a behavioural-tendency instrument: every exercise asks what you are most likely to do, never what should be done. No statute, authority, regulator, registration scheme, professional body, portal, developer, franchise or training scheme is named anywhere, and where a registration or disclosure regime is relevant it is referred to generically. A single global key on one country's rules would measure where you live rather than how you judge, so the instrument does not use one.
Each block puts four actions in front of you that a capable agent could defend out loud, matched on how appealing they are to endorse, one from each of the four parts of the job. You mark the one you are most likely to do and the one you are least likely to do. There is no filler to avoid and no obviously decent-sounding option to reach for, which is exactly why this format resists being gamed better than an agree-or-disagree grid. The instrument makes no claim to detect somebody answering as the person they wish they were, and says so on the report.
Zero is a real respondent, not a coin toss and not the middle of a scale. Every block declares the share of people who pick each statement as their most and as their least, authored per block, and zero is what somebody scores whose two picks are drawn from those declared shares. One hundred is the keyed order on every block. A prior-drawing respondent run through the instrument's own builder three hundred times lands about one point from zero. The declared shares are authoring estimates and observed data will replace them; the report prints their spread so you can see they are not an even split in disguise.
Every finding is written twice from one row: once to you and once to whoever runs your desk, so the two versions cannot drift apart the way two separately written reports do. The manager column is removed from the data before your copy is built, not merely hidden while your copy is drawn, and your copy tells you it exists and who can see it. It contains nothing your column does not — no risk flag, no inferred trait and no note on how you answered. Somebody with manager access to a sitting in the organisation that assigned it can see both columns. If you bought the sitting yourself, nobody sees either column unless you send it.
About thirty minutes for forty-one exercises across five formats. Fourteen blocks is fewer than the roughly thirty the forced-choice research asks for, the report says so in plain words, and the bands on every figure are drawn wide because of it. The sitting is free to take; the report is the product, at ₹499 in India, inclusive of GST, or US$4.99 elsewhere, one time. An unanswered exercise leaves the denominator rather than scoring zero, an entirely empty sitting scores exactly zero, and a sitting with fewer than twenty-five of the forty-one answered, or fewer than nine of the fourteen blocks, is not reported at all — the refusal is printed where the figure would have been, because a warning beside a number reads as a caveat and a warning instead of one reads as a decision.
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: Forty-one original exercises across five formats: fourteen forced-choice blocks on the MOST and LEAST carrier, nine described situations with graded partial credit, four select-every-action exercises, ten agree-or-disagree self-check statements and four six-point self-check scales. DECLARED RESPONSE INSTRUCTION: one instruction governs the whole instrument and it is BEHAVIOURAL TENDENCY. Every exercise asks what the reader is most likely to do, never what should be done; the described situations are worded the same way and the select-every-action exercises ask what the reader would actually take, so nothing is mixed within any scale. CONSTRUCT STATEMENT: This measures which of four defensible leanings a property adviser reports reaching for when a client, a vendor and a deadline pull in different directions, across fourteen forced choices and twenty-seven supporting exercises; it does not measure honesty, sales results, market knowledge, negotiating skill, or whether anybody should be licensed or registered to act as an agent. SCORING DESIGN, in words. The fourteen forced-choice blocks are a quasi-ipsative Thurstonian tendency index (C5). Each block carries four statements matched on social desirability within the block, one from each of the four dimensions, and each statement carries a declared defensibility value of three, two, one or zero for that situation; the block keys the three as MOST and the zero as LEAST. A reader's pattern gives each statement a normalised pairwise win score of one for the MOST pick, zero for the LEAST pick and one half for the two it left alone, which is the monotone scoring of a most-least block under a Thurstonian utility model. A dimension's earned credit is the sum over answered blocks of that win score times the declared value of that dimension's statement; its maximum is the sum of those declared values, reached by putting that dimension first in every block. Because the declared values differ by dimension and by block the four maxima differ, which is what stops the index being purely ipsative and lets a between-person reading survive alongside the within-person one. CHANCE CORRECTION. Every figure is corrected against a declared empirical marginal, never against a uniform guess. Each block declares a MOST share and a LEAST share per statement, authored per block, and the expected win score of a statement is its MOST share plus one half of the share of patterns that leave it alone. Zero on the printed scale is a reader whose MOST and LEAST picks are drawn from those declared shares; one hundred is the keyed pattern on every block; the scale is signed and runs from minus one hundred to one hundred. The described situations and select-every-action exercises are corrected the same way against their own declared per-option shares. The self-check statements and scales carry no key and no declared answer share, so they cannot be chance-corrected and they never enter any corrected figure; they are reported as a three-way self-view placement used only for an alignment line, and this is stated on the report. FOURTEEN BLOCKS IS BELOW THE IDEAL. The forced-choice literature asks for roughly thirty blocks before a multidimensional forced-choice form recovers stable normative estimates. This instrument has fourteen, it says so on the report in plain words, and it lets the reliability decide: omega is estimated from the number of answered blocks bearing on a dimension and a declared average inter-item correlation of .18, printed unrounded, and a dimension whose omega falls under .70 carries a three-way placement in words with the refusal printed in the place the figure would have occupied, never a number and never a percentile. FAKING. The format is designed against applied rather than laboratory faking effect sizes: within-block desirability matching is the control, the declared desirability of the four statements in each block sits inside a window of about a tenth of the scale, and the instrument makes no claim to detect faking. REFUSAL RULES. An unanswered exercise leaves the denominator rather than scoring zero. An entirely empty sitting scores exactly zero and is not reportable. A sitting with fewer than twenty-five of the forty-one exercises answered, or fewer than nine of the fourteen blocks, is not reportable at all and the refusal occupies the place the headline figure would have taken. A reader who marked the same dimension MOST in every block has produced a shape with no variation to read, and the within-person lean is refused in words rather than drawn. The two corrected figures, the forced-choice index and the corroboration index, are measured on different exercise counts, so both counts are printed beside both figures and a movement between them is only named when their ninety-five per cent bands fail to overlap. Careless-responding indicators are a flag count routed to whoever reviews the sitting, never shown to the reader as a judgement and never used to adjust a score. JURISDICTION. No statute, authority, regulator, registration scheme, professional body, portal, developer, franchise or training scheme is named anywhere in the instrument. Where a registration or disclosure regime is relevant it is referred to generically, because a single global key on one country's rules is a fairness defect rather than a measure of judgement. No option turns on a stereotype about a buyer's community, family structure, religion or income. Prices are described in relative terms rather than any currency. SOURCES. The constructs and the keying draw on: McDaniel, Morgeson, Finnegan, Campion and Braverman (2001) and McDaniel, Hartman, Whetzel and Grubb (2007) on situational-judgement validity and on the difference between would-do and should-do instructions; Lievens, Peeters and Schollaert on response instructions and construct validity; Haladyna, Downing and Rodriguez (2002) on item writing and cue control; Brown and Maydeu-Olivares (2011, 2013) on Thurstonian item response modelling of forced-choice blocks and on how such blocks should be assembled; Hicks (1970) and Meade (2004) on what ipsative data can and cannot support; Christiansen, Burns and Montgomery (2005) and Salgado, Anderson and Tauriz (2015) on quasi-ipsative forced choice and its validity; Birkeland, Manson, Kisamore, Brannick and Smith (2006) on the gap between laboratory and applied faking effect sizes; Baumgartner and Steenkamp (2001) on response styles and balanced keying; McDonald (1999) on omega rather than alpha; Crocker and Algina and Ebel and Frisbie on difficulty, discrimination and standard error; Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) on implementation intentions, which is the form the single action on the report takes; Jacobson and Truax (1991) on the reliable change index, which is the threshold printed for a re-sitting; and Hattie and Timperley (2007) on feed-up, feed-back and feed-forward at the task and process levels rather than the self level. ORIGINALITY. Every exercise, option, rationale and report sentence is an original work written for this instrument. No commercial instrument's items, scale names, type vocabulary or product name is used, reproduced or implied, and the instrument is not affiliated with, endorsed by or derived from any assessment publisher, property portal, developer, franchise, professional body or training scheme.