Reading a report means connecting its indicators to the assessment purpose, the definitions for the version used, and other evidence in the process. Move from context to dimensions, then to questions that can be explored and checked.
1. Confirm what you are reading
Check the date, purpose, and instrument version. Make sure the report belongs to the process under review and that you have the definitions accompanying that version.
If observations on response quality or consistency are available, review them before drawing conclusions. Questions about administration or interpretation should be addressed with the team responsible for the instrument.
2. Distinguish the whole from its parts
An overall indicator summarizes information. Dimensions help explore specific areas and may call for different questions. Reading only a summary leaves out context needed to understand the profile.
Review definitions before assigning meaning to a word, color, or result. Visual labels from one version should not automatically be transferred to another or become informal hiring rules.
3. Connect the reading to the role
Identify which responsibilities and workplace situations make a topic relevant. Keep role requirements separate from the reviewer’s personal assumptions.
- Which information is relevant to this process?
- What other evidence supports or qualifies the interpretation?
- Which questions remain open?
- Who can resolve a technical question?
4. Turn observations into conversation
In a fictional example, a team wants to understand how someone handles disagreements about the use of resources. It can ask the person to describe a situation, how they learned the rule, the alternatives considered, and how they communicated their decision.
The aim is to gather contextual information that can be checked. Making an accusation or assigning a label from an indicator closes the conversation before sufficient evidence is available.
5. Record the reasoning
Document what was reviewed, the questions asked, and the sources used. Keep instrument results, interview responses, and professional conclusions clearly distinguishable.
This record supports consistency among people involved in the process. Share only the information needed by those with a defined review responsibility.
A closing checklist
- The version and purpose are identified.
- Available administration observations have been reviewed.
- Dimensions were interpreted using their definitions.
- The conclusion includes other relevant evidence.
- Technical questions were referred to the appropriate channel.
Responsible interpretation preserves nuance. A report can guide analysis; a decision needs a documented process and people able to explain their reasoning.
Frequently asked questions
Is the overall indicator enough?
Also review dimensions, their definitions, and any available administration observations.
Can a report establish that misconduct occurred?
A report does not establish events. An investigation needs different sources and procedures.
Sources for this reading
AMITAI Honestidad foundations manual, pages 4–5, 36–37. An educational guide adapted from its concepts; it reproduces no individual reports and does not replace documentation for the version used.
An AMITAI Help Center publication.
