科学

科学基础

我们的评估基于经过验证的心理测量模型和持续研究，以确保可靠性和有效性。

Scientific Research
α > 0,8
Internal consistency

我们的评估符合最高的心理测量质量标准。

α > 0,8
Internal consistency
> 0,85
Temporal stability
Content
Content validity
Construct
Construct validity

经过验证的模型

Why4®基于全球认可的模型：DISC、Spranger、情商（Goleman）、文化智商（Earley & Ang, 2003）和CHC认知模型。

  • DISC：4个经过验证的行为维度
  • Spranger：6个深层动机经过验证
  • 情商：Goleman模型（5个支柱）
  • 文化智商：CQ模型（Earley & Ang, 2003）— 4个维度
  • 认知：Cattell-Horn-Carroll（CHC）模型

心理测量验证

我们通过定期的可靠性和有效性研究保持高心理测量质量标准。

  • 可靠性系数（Cronbach α）高于0.80
  • 内容和结构效度已得到证明
  • 对不同群体进行持续验证研究

研究与创新

我们的研发团队不断致力于改进我们的工具并开发新方法。

  • 整合人工智能以获取更深入的见解
  • 情商应用研究
  • 自进化架构 — 每次评估都持续优化预测模型
  • 符合国际标准：ISO 10667、APA、EFPA
Whey — 专有人工智能

自我进化的智能引擎

Whey不仅分析就业市场——它从每次完成的评估中<strong>持续学习</strong>。其双重架构——专有LLM + 预测性World Model——形成闭合改进循环，使系统在每个周期都更加精准。

Whey管道

从原始数据到经校准的心理测量分数

  1. 1
    大规模采集
    每月150万条结果通过SerpAPI · 504个RSS源 · Google Jobs + LinkedIn X-Ray管道。
  2. 2
    LLM分析
    Mistral提取隐性行为维度：支配性、影响力、稳定性、顺从性、EQ、CQ。
  3. 3
    区域情境化
    World Model应用CH/EU/GCC文化权重——跨市场的测量不变性。
  4. 4
    心理测量校准
    IRT + DIF · Cronbach α > 0.85 · 重测信度 > 0.88 · 符合ISO 10667和APA标准。
  5. 5
    反馈循环
    每次完成的评估通过元学习反馈到World Model。系统持续改进。
系统的核心

Whey自我进化循环

每次完成的评估、每个处理的职位招聘、每个分析的档案都反馈到World Model。系统永不停滞——向着不断增加的精确度收敛。

持续采集
每月150万信号——职位、档案、论文——自动采集和标准化。
LLM分析
LLM提取隐性行为维度，并按角色和地区生成原始分数。
World Model修正
预测性World Model根据区域文化规范约束、验证和重新校准分数。
元学习
真实响应分布通过小样本学习反馈到World Model——每个周期系统都在改进。
系统保证的内容
> 0.85
Cronbach α
> 0.88
重测信度
每月
更新周期
Academic References

Scientific Bibliography

1
DISC Theoretical Foundation
Marston, W. M. (1928)
Emotions of Normal People
Harcourt, Brace & Company
2
Why6® Theoretical Foundation
Spranger, E. (1928)
Types of Men
Steinkopf (Université de Berlin)
3
DISC Instrument Validation
Geier, J. G. (1979)
D.I.S.C. Personal Profile System: Manual
Performax Systems International
4
Big Five - NIH
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992)
Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R)
Psychological Assessment Resources
5
Meta-analysis - 162 studies
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991)
The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance
Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26
6
University of Florida
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002)
Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541
7
Harvard Business Review
Goleman, D. (1998)
Working with Emotional Intelligence
Bantam Books / Harvard Business Review Press
8
Yale / UNH
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004)
Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications
Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197–215
9
University of Texas
Bar-On, R. (2006)
The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI)
Psicothema, 18(Suppl.), 13–25
10
Australia
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., et al. (2009)
Exploring the validity of a measure of trait emotional intelligence
Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(5), 444–450
11
Harvard - Psycho-lexical
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936)
Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study
Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i–171
12
16PF - Illinois
Cattell, R. B. (1943)
The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4), 476–506
13
Tulane University
Hogan, R., & Holland, B. (2003)
Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100–112
14
Yale - Original Concept
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990)
Emotional intelligence
Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211
15
Michigan / Western Ontario
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991)
Personality measures as predictors of job performance
Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 703–742
16
International Standard
ISO 10667 (2020)
Assessment service delivery — Procedures and methods
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
17
International Guidelines
International Test Commission (ITC) (2001)
International Guidelines for Test Use
ITC Guidelines (Revised 2013)
18
APA Standards
American Psychological Association (APA) (2014)
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
APA / AERA / NCME
19
European Standards
European Federation of Psychologists Associations (EFPA) (2013)
EFPA Review Model for the Description and Evaluation of Psychological Tests
European Psychologist, 18(2), 87–99
20
UK Standards
British Psychological Society (BPS) (2017)
Testing and Assessment: Guidance on Test Use
BPS Psychological Testing Centre
21
CQ Foundational Source
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003)
Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures
Stanford University Press
22
CQ Psychometric Model — 4 Dimensions
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., et al. (2007)
Cultural Intelligence: Its Measurement and Effects
Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371
23
CQS — Cultural Intelligence Scale
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008)
Development and Validation of the CQS
Handbook of Cultural Intelligence. M. E. Sharpe
24
CQ Model Sub-Dimensions
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., et al. (2012)
Sub-Dimensions of the Four Factor Model of Cultural Intelligence
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4), 295–313
25
CQ Academic Synthesis
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Nielsen, T. M. (2016)
Cultural Intelligence
Oxford Bibliographies in Management
26
CQ — 领域与评估框架
Thomas, D. C., et al. (2008)
Cultural Intelligence: Domain and Assessment
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(2), 123–143
27
CQ vs IQ/EQ — 领导效能
Rockstuhl, T., et al. (2011)
Beyond General Intelligence (IQ) and Emotional Intelligence (EQ)
Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 825–840
28
CQ与谈判结果
Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010)
The Culturally Intelligent Negotiator
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 83–98
29
CQ — 个性与元认知
Chao, M. M., Takeuchi, R., & Foo, M. D. (2017)
Deciphering Cultural Intelligence
Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1)
30
酒店业中的CQ
Chen, A. S., Lin, Y. C., & Sawangpattanakul, A. (2011)
Cultural Intelligence and Performance in the International Hospitality Industry
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(1), 84–98
申请演示