A diagrammatic reasoning test shows shapes passing through a flowchart of rules and asks you to work out what comes out, or which rule must be missing. This guide explains how the questions work, walks through a generic example, summarises what the test tells employers, and gives practical tips for candidates.

What a diagrammatic reasoning test measures

Many jobs involve following a process: a set of steps that turns an input into an output. Software developers trace logic, engineers follow procedures, analysts work through data pipelines and operations staff apply rules in order. When something goes wrong, they have to work backwards to find which step caused it.

A diagrammatic reasoning test measures this logical, step-by-step thinking without needing any job knowledge. The Viewpoint Diagrammatic Reasoning Test has 24 flowchart questions in 20 minutes, with 8 parallel versions. Candidates follow shapes through a flowchart of rules to find the output or the missing rule, and a key explaining each rule symbol is shown on every question.

A worked example

The following is a generic illustration written for this article, not an item from the Viewpoint test.

The key gives three rules. A star symbol means "change the colour of the shape" (black to white, or white to black). A triangle symbol means "rotate the shape 90 degrees clockwise". A circle symbol means "add one dot inside the shape".

Forwards: a black arrow pointing up passes through a star, then a triangle, then a circle. The star makes it white; the triangle turns it to point right; the circle adds a dot. The output is a white arrow pointing right with one dot.

Backwards: a white arrow pointing up goes in, and a black arrow pointing right with no dot comes out. The flowchart shows a star, then an unknown step. The star changes white to black. To get from "pointing up" to "pointing right", the missing step must be the triangle. A circle would have added a dot, which the output does not have.

The key skill is applying each rule exactly and in order, then checking the final answer against every feature of the output.

What the test tells employers

Diagrammatic tests belong to the broad family of reasoning tests, which research shows predict job performance and training success across a wide range of roles [1]. Recent analysis suggests some earlier validity figures were overestimated, while confirming that ability tests remain useful predictors [2]. For roles built on logical processes, a diagrammatic test adds evidence that is hard to gather from an interview alone.

Speed and accuracy are both reported. A candidate who answers fewer questions with high accuracy is working carefully; one who answers many with lower accuracy may be applying rules too quickly.

Using a diagrammatic reasoning test well

For employers, the test suits IT, engineering, technical, analytical and graduate roles. Read results in bands from Very Low to Very High alongside an interview. You might ask a candidate with a lower result how they approach checking a process they have built.

For candidates, read the key carefully before starting each question, apply one rule at a time, and write nothing off until you have checked every feature. Practise with the example questions so the symbols feel familiar.

See the Diagrammatic Reasoning Test page, our Abstract Reasoning Test, or all our ability tests.

Frequently asked questions

How long does the Viewpoint Diagrammatic Reasoning Test take?

It has 24 questions and a time limit of 20 minutes.

Do I have to memorise the rules?

No. A key explaining every rule symbol is shown on every question.

What are the two question types?

Finding the output of a flowchart, and finding the rule that must be missing from it.

Which roles is it designed for?

Roles that involve following or designing processes, such as IT, engineering, analytical and graduate roles.

References

1. Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274.
2. Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M. & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040–2068.