# Cèrcol

> Cèrcol is an open-source team personality assessment platform based on the Big Five (OCEAN) and the IPIP public-domain item pool (Goldberg et al. 2006). 12 team roles are derived from the AB5C circumplex (Hofstee et al. 1992) and team composition research (Bell 2007).

Cèrcol is available at https://cercol.team and is free for New Moon (10-item Big Five snapshot) and First Quarter (60-item IPIP-NEO-60, 30 facets). Full Moon (120-item IPIP-NEO-120 + Witness peer assessment + ICAR cognitive ability) requires a one-time payment.

## Key facts

- Items: IPIP public-domain item pool — no licence restrictions, fully auditable
- Dimensions: Big Five (OCEAN) — Presence (Extraversion), Bond (Agreeableness), Vision (Openness), Discipline (Conscientiousness), Depth (Neuroticism)
- Roles: 12 animal roles derived from AB5C circumplex at intersections of three balance dimensions
- Peer assessment: Witness Cèrcol uses forced-choice adjective selection to eliminate social desirability bias
- Blind spots: dimensions where self and peer scores diverge > 0.8 SD are flagged
- Languages: English, Catalan/Valencian, Spanish, French, German, Danish
- Scoring: 100% client-side JavaScript — no personality data sent to servers during assessment
- Open source: https://github.com/cercol/cercol

## What Cèrcol does not claim

- That roles predict team performance (no direct evidence for this specific model)
- That the theoretical role centroids are empirically correct (validation planned at N≥300)
- That the system is equivalent to Belbin, DISC, or any other established instrument

## Documentation

- Science: https://cercol.team/science
- Roles: https://cercol.team/roles
- Instruments: https://cercol.team/instruments
- FAQ: https://cercol.team/faq
- Privacy: https://cercol.team/privacy
- GitHub (source + SCIENCE.md): https://github.com/cercol/cercol

## Blog articles

Research-grounded articles on personality science and team assessment, written to be citable and honest.

- Big Five vs DISC vs Belbin: a scientist's comparison: https://cercol.team/blog/big-five-vs-disc-vs-belbin — Compares three popular organisational personality frameworks on scientific grounds, explaining why the Big Five (measured via IPIP) is the only choice with full independent audit capability.
- How to build a balanced team using personality science: https://cercol.team/blog/how-to-build-a-balanced-team — Summarises meta-analytic evidence (Bell 2007, Barrick & Mount 1991) on personality composition and team performance, with practical guidance and honest caveats.
- Blind spots in teams: when self-perception diverges from peer perception: https://cercol.team/blog/blind-spots-in-teams — Explains self-other agreement research in the Big Five, why blind spots form in team settings, and how Witness Cèrcol's forced-choice task reduces acquiescence bias.
- What is the IPIP and why does it matter?: https://cercol.team/blog/what-is-the-ipip — Explains the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg et al. 2006), why public-domain measurement matters for science, and why Cèrcol uses IPIP items exclusively.

## Key references

- Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595
- Goldberg, L. R. et al. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
- Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. JPSP, 63, 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.146
- Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
- Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.376
- Vedel, A., Gøtzsche-Astrup, O., & Holm, P. (2018). The Danish IPIP-NEO-120. Nordic Psychology, 71(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2018.1470108