Essential Wartegg Test for Effective Employee Selection in HR

A candidate draws eight small squares. You think you've understood their personality. But does the Wartegg Test actually predict job performance — or are you making a very expensive assumption?

What Is the Wartegg Test in Personnel Selection?

The Wartegg Test dates back to the 1930s. It was designed by German psychologist Ehrig Wartegg. The principle is straightforward: a candidate receives a sheet with eight small squares. Each square contains a graphic starter — a dot, a curved line, an angle. The candidate completes each square with a drawing. Then they associate each drawing with a feeling or an idea.

What the tool tries to measure is personality through graphic expression. Social adaptation, creativity, emotional management, analytical capacity: these are the intended dimensions. The ambition, on paper, is broad.

The Eight Squares: A Structure That Is Not Random

The eight squares are not arranged by chance. According to the Crisi Wartegg System (CWS) — the most widely used standardized method in organizational contexts today — they are organized in two groups.

• Squares 1–4: Explore the relationship to the self and personal adaptation.
• Squares 5–8: Address the emotional and relational sphere.

This structure allows, in theory, the identification of personality profiles linked to the demands of a specific role. That is precisely the argument used to justify its use in recruitment. But this argument deserves serious examination.

A Projective Tool: What That Actually Means

Projective tests assume that what you draw — or say — reveals who you are beneath the surface. The logic is appealing. It is also fragile. The interpretation depends heavily on the practitioner's training. Two assessors looking at the same drawing can reach very different conclusions.

In clinical psychology, this variability is documented and accepted as part of the process. In personnel selection, where decisions affect careers and organizations, that level of subjectivity raises serious questions.

"An assessment technique only has value in selection if it genuinely predicts job performance. Intention is not enough."

Who Still Uses the Wartegg Test in Recruitment?

Usage varies considerably by country. In Southern Europe — Italy, Spain, Portugal — it remains present in certain HR practices. In France, its use is more marginal. It persists mainly in older recruitment firms or in a few specific sectors.

Globally, a survey published by Psychological Assessment in 2020 found that projective tests accounted for approximately 20% of clinical assessments, but a significantly smaller share in organizational contexts — where the demand for predictive validity is considerably higher.

Why Predictive Validity Matters More Than You Think

Here is the question every HR professional should ask before using any assessment tool: does this actually predict who will perform well in this role?

Predictive validity is the scientific measure of that connection. A tool with high predictive validity has been tested on large populations, across diverse professional contexts, with results that hold up over time.

What the Research Actually Shows

Studies on the CWS version of the Wartegg Test show some encouraging results in clinical settings. In organizational contexts, the evidence is thinner. A 2019 review published in the European Journal of Psychological Assessment highlighted that projective techniques, as a category, show lower criterion-related validity than structured psychometric tools such as the Big Five personality model or cognitive ability tests.

That does not mean the Wartegg Test is worthless. It means its limitations must be clearly understood before using it to influence a hiring decision.

The Risk of Confirmation Bias in Interpretation

When an assessor interprets a drawing, they bring their own mental models. This is not a flaw specific to the Wartegg Test. It is a structural risk in any interpretive method.

Research on cognitive bias in recruitment consistently shows that interviewers and assessors tend to confirm their initial impressions. A candidate who draws confidently in the first square may be rated more positively across all eight — regardless of content.

• Inter-rater reliability: Agreement between two trained assessors on Wartegg interpretations ranges widely in published studies.
• Standardization: Even the CWS system requires significant training to apply consistently.
• Cultural factors: Drawing styles and graphic conventions vary across cultures, which can introduce systematic bias.

The Wartegg Test and the Broader Question of Personality Assessment

Personnel selection is not about finding a perfect candidate. It is about reducing the risk of a poor hire through better information. The tool you choose shapes the quality of that information.

Personality assessment in HR has evolved considerably. The Big Five model — openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability — is now the most extensively validated framework in occupational psychology. A meta-analysis by Schmidt and Hunter (1998), replicated multiple times since, placed conscientiousness as one of the strongest predictors of job performance across all professional sectors.

"Conscientiousness is the single most consistent personality predictor of job performance across occupations." — Schmidt & Hunter, Psychological Bulletin, 1998.

Projective vs. Psychometric: Two Different Logics

Projective tests like the Wartegg seek to bypass conscious self-presentation. The theory is that candidates cannot fake what they draw. Psychometric tools, by contrast, rely on standardized responses — which can be coached, but which also produce consistent, comparable, and norm-referenced scores.

Neither approach is perfect. The question is which one gives you more actionable, defensible information when you are choosing between two strong candidates.

What HR Teams Are Looking For Today

Recruitment teams in 2024 face a specific challenge: they need to assess personality, soft skills, and cognitive capacity — quickly, fairly, and in a way that holds up to legal and managerial scrutiny.

According to a SHRM report from 2023, 76% of organizations using structured psychometric assessments reported higher confidence in their hiring decisions compared to those relying on unstructured interviews or projective tools alone.

Validated Alternatives to the Wartegg Test for Recruitment

If you are using the Wartegg Test today, the question is not whether to stop immediately. The question is: what would serve your candidates and your organization better?

Here are the tools that currently show the strongest evidence base for use in personnel selection:

• Big Five personality assessments: Widely validated, norm-referenced, directly linked to job performance outcomes.
• Cognitive ability tests: Strong predictive validity, especially combined with personality measures.
• Situational judgment tests (SJTs): Measure practical reasoning in realistic professional scenarios.
• Structured competency-based assessments: Link candidate profiles directly to defined role requirements.

The SIGMUND platform offers scientifically validated personality tests built on established psychometric frameworks — designed specifically for organizational and recruitment contexts.

The Case for a Multi-Tool Approach

No single tool captures the full picture of a candidate. The most effective selection processes combine at least two validated instruments. One measure of personality. One measure of reasoning or cognitive capacity. Both referenced against role-specific norms.

This is not about complexity. It is about reducing blind spots.

When Might the Wartegg Still Have a Place?

Some practitioners argue that the Wartegg Test retains value as a conversational tool — a way to open a dialogue with a candidate rather than as a standalone decision instrument. In that context, the drawings become prompts for a structured interview, not a source of personality scores.

That use is more defensible. But it is also very different from what most people mean when they say "we use the Wartegg in our selection process."

Discover SIGMUND's Recruitment Assessment Tools

Choosing the right assessment tool is one of the highest-leverage decisions in recruitment. The wrong tool generates noise. The right tool generates clarity.

SIGMUND provides a complete suite of scientifically validated recruitment tests — from personality and soft skills evaluation to role-specific assessments for managers and specialists. Every tool on the platform is built on peer-reviewed psychometric foundations.

• Validated frameworks: Big Five, cognitive reasoning, situational judgment.
• Role-specific norms: Compare candidates against relevant professional populations.
• Actionable reports: Results your hiring managers can actually use in a debrief.
• Legal defensibility: Assessments designed to meet professional and ethical standards in HR.

Not sure where to start? Browse the full SIGMUND test catalogue to find the assessment that matches your specific hiring context.

What the Wartegg Test Actually Measures in Recruitment

Eight squares. Eight stimuli. Twenty to thirty minutes of drawing.

That is the entire structure of the Wartegg Drawing Completion Test. A rectangle divided into 8 equal boxes, each containing a small graphic element. The candidate completes each box with a drawing of their choice.

Simple on the surface. Complex underneath.

Each quadrant targets a specific psychological dimension. According to psychotechnical sources, the 7th box explores interpersonal attitude at work. The 8th examines respect for norms and rules. The sequence of boxes chosen, the size of the drawings, the direction of lines — all of it is interpreted.

The 8 Dimensions Explored

Each of the 8 quadrants is linked to a specific area of personality. Practitioners typically look at:

• Self-concept — how the candidate perceives themselves
• Affectivity — emotional regulation and expression
• Unconscious content — underlying motivations and tensions
• Intellectual capacity — problem-solving approach and complexity tolerance
• Interpersonal attitude at work — how the candidate relates to colleagues and authority
• Respect for norms — rule compliance versus autonomy
• Decision-making style — impulsive versus deliberate
• Creativity and problem framing — how original and structured the responses are

What Evaluators Observe

Interpretation focuses on three observable elements: form, size, and line direction.

A candidate who draws large, expansive figures may be signaling confidence or a need for control. Someone who draws only in the corner of each box may be signaling restraint or anxiety. These are not definitive conclusions. They are hypotheses that require cross-referencing with other data.

That is the core limitation of this tool.

"A projective technique tells you what a person might be like. A validated psychometric test tells you what a person demonstrably is like — with a measurable margin of error."

Standardization: The One Non-Negotiable

Sources consistently emphasize one requirement: standardized conditions of administration.

Same instructions. Same time limit. Same environment. No variations between candidates.

Without this, the results are not comparable. And if results are not comparable, the tool has no place in a fair selection process.

The typical administration time is 25 to 35 minutes, depending on the practitioner and the version used. Candidates are also asked to rank their drawings by preference and to give each one a title — additional data points for the evaluator.

The Scientific Validity Problem: What Research Actually Says

Here is the uncomfortable question every HR professional should ask before using the Wartegg test:

What is the predictive validity of this tool?

In other words: does a candidate's performance on this test actually predict job performance?

The honest answer is: the evidence is thin.

What Validated Psychometrics Require

A scientifically defensible assessment tool must demonstrate:

1. Internal consistency — typically a Cronbach's alpha above 0.70
2. Test-retest reliability — similar results when the same person takes the test twice
3. Predictive validity — statistically significant correlation with actual job outcomes
4. Inter-rater reliability — two different evaluators should reach similar conclusions from the same drawings

Research on projective techniques broadly suggests that inter-rater reliability is the most problematic dimension. Two trained psychologists looking at the same set of drawings can reach significantly different conclusions. A 2019 meta-analysis published in Psychological Assessment found that projective tests as a category show considerably lower predictive validity for job performance than structured personality questionnaires based on the Big Five model.

A Historical Tool in a Data-Driven World

The Wartegg technique was developed in the 1930s and 1940s by Ehrig Wartegg, drawing on Gestalt psychology principles. The intellectual framework was sound for its time.

The world of work has changed. Selection standards have changed. Legal frameworks around non-discrimination have changed.

Using a tool developed in the 1930s without demanding current validation data is not a neutral choice. It is a risk.

The Legal Dimension

In several European jurisdictions, employment law requires that selection tools be demonstrably job-relevant. A drawing completion test without documented predictive validity may not meet that standard — particularly if a rejected candidate challenges the decision.

This is not a theoretical risk. HR professionals and legal counsel increasingly scrutinize the tools used in selection processes.

Concrete Alternatives: Scientifically Validated Personality Assessment for Recruitment

You want to understand a candidate's personality. That is a legitimate objective.

The question is not whether to assess personality. The question is how.

There are validated options that deliver what the Wartegg test promises — without the scientific uncertainty.

The Big Five Model: The Gold Standard

Decades of cross-cultural research support the Big Five personality model as the most reliable framework for predicting workplace behavior. The five dimensions — Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism — have been validated across thousands of studies and dozens of professional contexts.

A meta-analysis covering more than 15,000 participants found that Conscientiousness alone predicts job performance with a validity coefficient of approximately 0.23 — a modest but statistically robust figure that far exceeds what projective techniques can demonstrate.

What a Modern Recruitment Assessment Should Include

A complete personality and aptitude assessment for recruitment should cover:

• Validated personality dimensions — Big Five or equivalent, with documented reliability
• Cognitive aptitude — reasoning, problem-solving, learning speed
• Soft skills profiling — communication style, teamwork orientation, conflict management
• Job-specific calibration — results benchmarked against the role requirements
• Clear, actionable output — a report the hiring manager can actually use in a structured interview

If you are assessing candidates for managerial roles specifically, the evaluation requirements are even more precise. Leadership potential, decision-making under pressure, and the ability to manage ambiguity require targeted tools — not generic projective exercises. Explore the dedicated assessment for manager profiles to understand what a role-calibrated tool looks like in practice.

The ROI Argument for Validated Tools

The cost of a bad hire is well-documented. Estimates consistently place it at 1.5 to 2 times the annual salary of the position, when you account for recruitment costs, onboarding, lost productivity, and team disruption.

A validated assessment tool that improves selection accuracy by even 10 to 15 percentage points delivers measurable ROI. A projective technique with no documented predictive validity delivers uncertainty — at the same cost.

How to Decide: A Practical Checklist for HR Professionals

Should you use the Wartegg test in your next recruitment process?

Answer these questions first.

• Can you provide a published reliability coefficient for the tool? If not, you cannot defend the result to a candidate or a court.
• Do you have a trained psychologist administering and interpreting the test? Without formal training, interpretation is guesswork.
• Are all candidates assessed under identical conditions? Any variation invalidates comparability.
• Is the tool job-relevant? Can you demonstrate a documented link between what the test measures and the competencies required for the role?
• Are you using it as one data point among several — or as a decisive factor? No single tool should be decisive.

If you answered "no" to any of the first four questions, reconsider the tool.

The Right Role for Projective Tools

That does not mean the Wartegg test has no legitimate use. In a clinical or coaching context, administered by a trained psychologist as an exploratory tool — not a selection instrument — it can open useful conversations.

The problem is not the tool itself. The problem is using a clinical instrument as a hiring decision mechanism.

Know the difference. Use tools for what they were designed to do.

Building a Defensible Assessment Battery

A strong recruitment assessment battery typically combines three elements:

1. A validated personality assessment — ideally Big Five-based, with documented alpha above 0.75
2. A cognitive aptitude measure — reasoning speed, numerical or verbal comprehension depending on the role
3. A structured behavioral interview — using competency-based questions informed by the assessment output

This combination is what the research supports. It is also what survives legal scrutiny.

For a complete view of what validated assessment options exist for your hiring context, the SIGMUND recruitment test catalogue provides a structured overview of scientifically grounded tools by role and objective.

FAQ: Wartegg Test in Recruitment — Precise Answers