Headquarters: Berlin, Germany
Assessed: AI-scored skills assessments and reference checking.
Rubric: version 1. Search protocol applied and all sources accessed: 2026-09-22.
Documented 0, partial 3, absent 5, of eight criteria. This records what is published about the validity and fairness of the scores. It is not an assessment of the product, the model or the underlying science.
| # | Criterion | Level |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | Technical manual or validity report publicly available without a sales conversation | P |
| C2 | Validity coefficients reported with sample size and uncertainty | A |
| C3 | Adverse impact reported by named subgroup | A |
| C4 | Scored construct named and defined, not described only by outcome | P |
| C5 | Evidence of comparability across languages, versions or delivery modes | A |
| C6 | Human oversight documented, with a candidate route to contest a score | A |
| C7 | Independent review named and the reviewer identified | A |
| C8 | Reliability reported, and reported by group | P |
C1. Technical manual or validity report publicly available without a sales conversation
Partial.
A public, dated psychometric standards page exists: "November 20, 2025", referencing "Our Psychometric Quality Targets".
Source: https://docs.hipeople.io/en/articles/12895113-hipeople-s-psychometric-standards (accessed 2026-09-22).
The page states quality targets. The table of thresholds is published as an image.
C2. Validity coefficients reported with sample size and uncertainty
Absent.
No public source was found for this criterion by the search protocol.
Pages examined include https://docs.hipeople.io/en/articles/12895113-hipeople-s-psychometric-standards (accessed 2026-09-22).
C3. Adverse impact reported by named subgroup
Absent.
No public source was found for this criterion by the search protocol.
Pages examined include https://docs.hipeople.io/en/articles/12895113-hipeople-s-psychometric-standards (accessed 2026-09-22).
C4. Scored construct named and defined, not described only by outcome
Partial.
A construct is defined where a bias mechanism is discussed: social desirability bias as "the tendency of individuals to respond to assessment questions in a manner that presents them in a favorable light rather than providing honest or accurate responses."
Source: https://docs.hipeople.io/en/articles/9058748-navigating-social-desirability-bias-how-hipeople-ensures-reliable-assessments (accessed 2026-09-22).
The defined construct is a response bias. Scored constructs are referred to by category without definitions.
C5. Evidence of comparability across languages, versions or delivery modes
Absent.
No public source was found for this criterion by the search protocol.
Pages examined include https://docs.hipeople.io/en/articles/12895113-hipeople-s-psychometric-standards (accessed 2026-09-22).
C6. Human oversight documented, with a candidate route to contest a score
Absent.
No public source was found for this criterion by the search protocol.
Pages examined include https://docs.hipeople.io/en/articles/12895113-hipeople-s-psychometric-standards (accessed 2026-09-22).
C7. Independent review named and the reviewer identified
Absent.
No public source was found for this criterion by the search protocol.
Pages examined include https://docs.hipeople.io/en/articles/12895113-hipeople-s-psychometric-standards (accessed 2026-09-22).
C8. Reliability reported, and reported by group
Partial.
The standards page states an ongoing programme of "validity and reliability studies" across the assessment library without publishing a coefficient.
Source: https://docs.hipeople.io/en/articles/12895113-hipeople-s-psychometric-standards (accessed 2026-09-22).
An ongoing programme of validity and reliability studies is stated. No coefficient is published.
Absent records the outcome of the published search protocol on 2026-09-22. Where a source is supplied that the search did not reach, the cell is re-scored under the corrections policy, with the date of the change recorded and the previous level retained.
Back to the index, the rubric and the methods note