This paper examines a number of commonly used theories and constructs applied to the investigation of the entrepreneur (at the individual level). For each of these theories, an existing measure is selected and assessed on its applicability to the study of entrepreneurship education, reflecting on past research and an empirical investigation in the entrepreneurship education context. Focusing on trait theory, self-efficacy, intentionality and passion, a measure for each construct was investigated by administering it on a sample of students (n=367) taking an entrepreneurship education module. Aspects of the reliability, validity, internal consistency and factor structure of each test were examined using SPSS and MPlus statistical analyses. The findings allow for a direct comparison to be made of the measures in a controlled environment. Theoretically there is a justification for applying each assessment approach to entrepreneurship education. Based on past research it was noted that trait theory has often been criticised for inconsistent empirical findings. This was echoed in our study as empirical analysis supported the use of the entrepreneurial intentionality and entrepreneurial self-efficacy measures, yet the trait measure, the General Enterprise Tendency (GET) test displayed worrisome reliability and structural validities and would not be recommended for future research without significant revision. The measure used to examine entrepreneurial passion was stable in the context, and furthermore suggested that this construct may offer valuable insight about the mindset of students undertaking entrepreneurship education in future. Limitations of the study include use of a mainly homogenous sample with no control group. The measures for analysis were selected as they were intended for entrepreneurship research and have since been applied to entrepreneurship education. The measures are not reflective of respective theory as a whole. Different and many theories could have been selected, as well as alternative measurement instruments. The measures could have been integrated together into a more complex analysis, however the intended purpose was to examine them in parallel. There have been repeated calls to systematise the assessment of entrepreneurship education, to converge existing knowledge and research. It is hoped that this paper provides educators with an overview and empirical insight regarding theories and measures to adopt for future research and assessment approaches.