Psychology & Behavioral Science
Upscend Team
-January 19, 2026
9 min read
This article reviews academic and commercial validated curiosity tests, comparing validation methods, sample sizes, and reliability benchmarks (e.g., CEI-II, Epistemic Curiosity). It explains what makes a test valid, role-based uses, interpretation tips, and vendor questions. Use the suggested vendor checklist and small pilot protocol to evaluate instruments before full hiring adoption.
Validated curiosity tests are increasingly used in hiring, development, and culture diagnostics to identify candidates and employees with durable inquisitive tendencies. In our experience, organizations that rely on rigorously validated instruments reduce selection bias and make more defensible talent decisions. This article curates reputable academic scales and commercial assessment options, summarizes their validation methods, sample sizes and reliability statistics, and offers a practical comparison and vendor-contact checklist.
Below is a compact reference that contrasts leading academic scales and common commercial approaches to measuring curiosity. It highlights the typical validation approach, sample scope, and reliability benchmarks reported in the literature or by providers.
| Instrument / Provider | Construct | Validation method | Sample size (reported) | Reliability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Curiosity and Exploration Inventory-II (CEI-II) | Trait curiosity / exploration | Factor analysis, convergent validity vs. well-being & openness | Multiple samples (combined N often >1,500) | Alpha ≈ .80–.88 across studies |
| Epistemic Curiosity Scale (EC) | Interest/Deprivation (I/D) curiosity | Scale development, predictive validity for learning | Samples reported from several studies (Ns 200–1,200) | Alpha ≈ .75–.90 |
| Work-related Curiosity scales (commercial) | Job-relevant inquisitiveness | Criterion validation vs. performance, simulations | Provider reports often N 500–3,000 (norms) | Internal consistency typically .70–.85 |
Note: Many commercial providers license academic scales or adapt items; request technical manuals for exact sample details. The table gives directional benchmarks, not exhaustive psychometric dossiers.
A frequent pain point is trustworthiness: teams want assessments that measure psychometric curiosity reliably and predictively. Validity is multi-faceted. We look for several pieces of evidence before calling an instrument a validated curiosity test.
Important validation elements include:
Validation typically uses mixed-method designs: exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis on initial item pools, followed by convergent and discriminant checks (correlations with openness, motivation, cognitive ability). Larger norming studies (N several hundred to thousands) are used to build percentiles and to calculate reliability statistics. Providers should present a technical manual summarizing these steps.
Beware instruments with only small pilot samples (N<100), no technical manual, or undisclosed reliability. A provider claiming a single proprietary metric without published evidence should be treated cautiously.
Search paths fall into three categories: academic measures, licensed commercial assessments, and integrated talent platforms that include curiosity modules. Each has trade-offs between transparency and turnkey usability.
Below is a concise resource list with how to access each item and what to ask for when you contact providers.
When searching for "scientific CQ tests" or doing a comparison of validated CQ assessments, focus on instruments that publish a technical manual with sample descriptions, item-level analyses, and cross-validation evidence.
Curiosity has different predictive value depending on role. Matching instrument selection and interpretation to the role is a key step many teams miss.
High-level guidance:
In our experience, pairing a validated trait measure with a short situational judgment test or work-sample yields stronger hiring decisions than using a curiosity score alone.
(Practical industry platforms now allow blended workflows — for example, real-time candidate dashboards and integration options are available in platforms like Upscend.)
Receiving a report from a validated curiosity test is only useful when interpreted correctly. Below is a concise step-by-step reading guide we use during debriefs.
When contacting vendors or assessing licensed scales, ask a short set of technical questions that quickly separate robust providers from marketing-driven offerings.
"We recommend prioritizing instruments with published independent replications and transparent norming information—those are the tests you can defend in a hiring audit," says a senior HR psychometrician I consulted for this piece.
When evaluating a comparison of validated CQ assessments, request an item-level overview and ask whether the provider will support local re-norming if your workforce differs substantially from the normative sample. Also check integration options (API, CSV export) and candidate experience (time to complete, device compatibility).
Finding trustworthy validated curiosity tests requires balancing academic rigor and practical usability. Use academic scales (CEI-II, Epistemic Curiosity measures) when you need transparent psychometrics, and licensed commercial modules when you need turnkey reporting and ATS integration. In every procurement, demand the technical manual and independent validation studies, confirm norms and reliability for your target role, and pair curiosity scores with behavioral evidence.
To act now: assemble a short vendor request checklist (technical manual, norm description, reliability table, sample report) and evaluate two instruments side-by-side with a small pilot (N=50–100) before full-scale adoption. This reduces risk and surfaces interpretation issues early.
Call to action: If you want a ready-to-use vendor evaluation checklist and pilot protocol tailored to your hiring needs, request our template to streamline selection and ensure you choose truly validated curiosity tests that align with your role requirements.
