International schools have a lot of options when it comes to admissions assessment. Some use standardised tests designed for the US market. Some use cognitive ability tests originally designed for tracking progress rather than admissions. Some use paper tests written by their own staff. Some use a structured interview. Some use all of these, in combination, in ways that have accumulated over years without anyone deciding they were the right answer.
This is not a criticism. Schools work with what is available. But it is worth being clear about what each of these tools was designed to do, and what they leave unanswered.
SSAT and ISEE
The Secondary School Admission Test (SSAT) and the Independent School Entrance Exam (ISEE) are well-established tools for admission to American independent schools. They are designed for the US market, calibrated against US norms, and report results in ways that make sense to US admissions directors who know what a 75th percentile SSAT score means for a Grade 8 applicant to a New England boarding school.
For international schools that are not US curriculum schools, they are a poor fit. They are expensive for families, require external administration, are not calibrated to IB or British curriculum expectations, and produce reports in a format that is unfamiliar to non-US assessors. They also require students to have specifically prepared for them, which disadvantages students whose families cannot afford test preparation.
CAT4 and cognitive ability testing
The Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT4) is a respected instrument for measuring reasoning ability. It is widely used in UK and international schools for tracking purposes, understanding how a student's cognitive ability compares to their academic attainment, identifying underachievers, and informing setting decisions.
What it is not designed to do is function as a standalone admissions assessment. It provides reasoning data but no English or mathematics domain assessment, no extended writing evaluation, no recommendation framework calibrated to the school's entry thresholds, and no professional report suitable for parent communication or audit trail purposes.
Many schools use CAT4 as one component of a larger process. That is legitimate. But it leaves the rest of the admissions picture, the writing quality, the mathematical knowledge, the recommendation, to be assembled manually from other sources.
In-house paper tests
In-house tests written by the school's own staff have one significant advantage: they can be precisely calibrated to the school's curriculum and entry expectations. A mathematics paper written by the head of mathematics knows exactly what a Year 7 student at that school should be able to do.
The disadvantages are significant. Writing, printing, distributing, collecting, and scoring paper tests is time-intensive. Results are not systematically comparable across assessors or intake cycles. There is no professional report generated. There is no audit trail. If the head of mathematics who wrote the test leaves, the institutional knowledge of what the marking scheme intended goes with them.
Informal interviews
Interviews are a valuable part of many admissions processes. Meeting a student and their family provides information that no written assessment can capture. But an interview alone is not an admissions assessment. It is not structured, it is not consistent across different interviewers, it cannot produce a comparable record of evidence, and it is particularly susceptible to bias, conscious or otherwise, based on factors unrelated to academic ability.
What international schools actually need
An admissions assessment tool for an international school needs to do several things simultaneously: assess the domains that matter (English, Mathematics, Reasoning, and something about the student beyond academics), calibrate to the entry grade and curriculum, produce a professional report with a clear recommendation, generate a defensible audit trail, work for students from any educational background, and integrate into an efficient administrative workflow.
None of the traditional options do all of these things. Evalent was built to do all of them, for international and independent schools specifically, rather than being adapted from a tool designed for a different context.
The free trial is the most direct way to evaluate whether it works for your school. Ten assessments, no credit card, full access to reports, the Strategy page, and team management.
See this in practice
Book a demo of Evalent Admissions
See how a report, your thresholds and the decision record fit together, and ask us anything about your own admissions process.