Kenexa Test Results Explained

SEO title: Kenexa Results Explained: Scores by Section

Meta description: What Kenexa results contain: per-section percentiles against a norm group, how personality reports differ, and whether you ever see your scores.

Suggested URL: /tests/kenexa-test-results-explained

Quick answer

Kenexa does not produce a single overall result. Because the assessments are separate, individually timed sections, the employer receives a set of outcomes — one per assessment you completed. A numerical reasoning result, a verbal reasoning result, a logical or inductive reasoning result, and, where they were assigned, a personality or behavioural profile and any job-skills test output. Each is reported and interpreted on its own terms.

For the reasoning sections, the meaningful figure is almost never your raw number of correct answers. Ability tests of this kind are interpreted against a comparison group — a norm group — so the output an employer sees is typically a relative one, expressing how your performance compares with a defined population of test-takers rather than a mark out of the total. Which comparison group is used matters enormously, and it is chosen by the employer or the assessment provider for the role in question.

The personality and behavioural questionnaires work differently again and are not scored as pass or fail. They produce a profile — a description of preferences and working style — that an employer reads against what the role demands. A profile is not right or wrong, which is why trying to construct an ideal one is both difficult and counterproductive. Below, each part of the output is unpacked, along with the question candidates actually care about: whether you will ever see any of it.

What the employer receives, section by section

The reporting is modular, matching the way the assessments are administered.

For each reasoning section, the employer gets an indication of how you performed relative to the chosen comparison group, usually alongside some descriptive interpretation. Because the sections measure different things, a candidate can appear strong on one and average on another, and that pattern is itself information — a role heavy on data work may weight the numerical result more than the verbal one.

Personality and behavioural questionnaires produce a profile across a set of traits or work-style dimensions, often with narrative text describing likely strengths and preferences and sometimes with suggested interview probes for the hiring team. Some employers use this only after a shortlist is drawn, as material for a structured interview rather than as a screen.

Where a role involves specific software or clerical skills, an employer may add a job-skills assessment from the Prove It! line — the long-established Kenexa product family covering things like spreadsheet and word-processing proficiency, data entry and accounting tasks. Those report differently again, usually as a proficiency indication on the specific skill rather than as a reasoning percentile.

One piece of context worth knowing: IBM acquired Kenexa in 2012, and in January 2020 SHL and IBM announced a partnership under which SHL provides IBM Kenexa Assessment content through SHL's platform, providing continuity for existing Kenexa customers. Depending on the employer, the report a recruiter opens may therefore be produced within SHL's reporting environment even though the content is the Kenexa material you sat.

Why a percentile, not a mark out of twenty

Reasoning assessments are interpreted comparatively because a raw score has no meaning on its own. Getting fourteen questions right tells an employer nothing until they know how hard the questions were and how other people performed.

A norm group solves that. Your performance is positioned against a defined population — which might be general working adults, graduates, applicants for a particular job family, or a professional population, depending on what the provider and employer selected. The result is a statement of relative standing rather than an absolute mark.

Which is why the single most important question about any percentile is: compared with whom? The same performance can land in very different places against a broad working population and against a pool of graduate applicants for a quantitative role, because the second group is more selected. Candidates comparing figures with each other almost never know whether they were measured against the same group, which makes the comparison close to meaningless.

This also explains a common source of confusion. A candidate who felt they answered most questions correctly can still receive a modest relative result if the comparison group is strong, and vice versa. Neither outcome says anything is wrong with the test — it is doing exactly what a norm-referenced measure is designed to do.

How employers combine the sections

There is no standard formula, and the combination rule is the employer's own.

Some treat each section as an independent gate: a result below the line on any assigned section stops the application, regardless of performance elsewhere. Some combine sections into an overall indication, so strength in one can offset weakness in another. Some weight sections by relevance — numerical reasoning carrying more for an analytical role, verbal for a communications-heavy one. Some use the reasoning sections as an early screen and hold the personality profile back for interview preparation rather than for filtering.

You will usually not be told which model applies, and there is nothing to gain from guessing. The planning consequence is simple: do not neglect a section on the assumption it counts for less. If each assigned section is a separate hurdle, a strong numerical result does not rescue a weak logical one.

It is also worth remembering that the assessment is one component of a wider process. Application screening, interviews, and role-specific requirements all sit alongside it, and a rejection following an assessment stage does not always mean the assessment was the deciding factor.

Why comparing results with other candidates rarely works

Candidates naturally swap notes, and with Kenexa the comparison breaks down for more reasons than usual. It is worth seeing why before you calibrate yourself against someone else's account.

The first reason is the section mix. Employers assign only the assessments relevant to a role, so two candidates describing "the Kenexa test" may have sat entirely different combinations — one numerical and personality, another verbal and logical. Their outcomes are not measuring the same thing.

The second is the comparison group. A relative result only means something against the population it was benchmarked to, and that population is selected for the role. A figure produced against a general working-adult group and one produced against graduate applicants for an analytical role are not interchangeable, and almost nobody comparing notes knows which they were measured against.

The third is the employer's combination rule. Whether sections are separate gates, weighted, or combined into an overall indication is set by the employer and rarely published, so identical section outcomes can produce different decisions at two companies.

The fourth is that the assessment is one input among several. Application screening, interviews and role requirements sit alongside it, so "I got X and was rejected" usually does not identify which part of the process was decisive.

The comparison that does work is with your own practice results over time, on the same section type under the same conditions. That one actually tells you something you can act on.

Will you be shown your results?

Usually not in any detail. Most employers release a progression decision rather than a report, for the same reasons they withhold other assessment data: results are calibrated to a role and a comparison group, releasing them invites disputes about interpretation, and providing individual feedback at volume is a resourcing problem few recruitment teams have solved.

There are exceptions worth knowing about. Some employers, particularly on graduate schemes and in markets where candidate experience is competitive, provide a short feedback summary after ability testing. Some jurisdictions and some employers' own policies give candidates a route to request feedback on assessment results, and asking once, politely, via the recruitment contact named on your invitation is a reasonable thing to do. Keep it to a few lines: your name, the role and reference, and a request for any feedback available.

If you do receive something, read it structurally rather than emotionally. "Below the level required for this role on numerical reasoning" tells you where to put your preparation next time. It does not tell you anything general about your ability, because it is a statement about one section, one comparison group, and one role.

How long results take and what to do meanwhile

Scoring itself is essentially immediate for the reasoning sections — these are machine-scored and the employer typically has the output very soon after you submit. Any wait you experience is the employer's process rather than the assessment.

That process varies enormously. Employers hiring on a rolling basis may move within days. Employers running a scheme with a fixed application window often batch-review after it closes, which can mean weeks of silence with no bearing on your performance. Where several assessments were assigned, some employers wait until every candidate has completed the full set before reviewing any of them. If your invitation stated an expected timeframe, trust that over anything you read on a forum; if it has clearly passed, a single short follow-up to the recruitment contact is reasonable.

Whatever the outcome, spend ten minutes the same day writing your own debrief: which sections you sat, which question types felt slow, whether you ran out of time in any section, and whether you left anything unanswered. Because Kenexa content is used across many employers and the section types are stable, that note is directly useful the next time an invitation lands — and it is far more actionable than a score report you were never going to receive.

How TestSolve can help

TestSolve lets candidates practise realistic question types, see worked explanations, and review their mistakes before a real online assessment. Since Kenexa results usually arrive as a progression decision with no detail attached, the practical way to get diagnostic information is to generate it in advance: work through numerical, verbal and logical sections separately under time pressure, then read the worked explanations for the items you missed or solved slowly.

That produces the thing an employer's report would not give you anyway — a per-section picture of where your time and marks are going. Reviewing your mistakes across a batch shows whether the gap is data-reading in the numerical section, over-inferring in the verbal section, or an unfamiliar rule set in the logical section, and each of those needs different work. Knowing which one applies to you is considerably more useful than knowing a percentile you cannot interpret.

Frequently asked questions

TestSolve is independent and not affiliated with any test provider or employer named on this page. All product names and trademarks belong to their respective owners.