Headquarters: London, United Kingdom
Assessed: Assessment and development publisher, including the Mindgage cognitive ability series scored with machine learning.
Rubric: version 1. Search protocol applied and all sources accessed: 2026-09-22.
Documented 0, partial 4, absent 4, 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 | P |
| 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 | P |
| C7 | Independent review named and the reviewer identified | A |
| C8 | Reliability reported, and reported by group | A |
C1. Technical manual or validity report publicly available without a sales conversation
Partial.
A technical manual is described as available on request: for statistics on validity and reliability the company "requests a copy of their Technical Manual".
Source: https://talogy.com/en/knowledge-hub/ai-in-talent-assessment/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
The document is reachable only by asking for it and was not read.
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://talogy.com/en/knowledge-hub/ai-in-talent-assessment/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
C3. Adverse impact reported by named subgroup
Partial.
"Mindgage has been shown to be an equivalent or better predictor of job performance in some roles compared to traditional assessments, with up to 60% reduction in subgroup differences."
Source: https://talogy.com/en/knowledge-hub/ai-in-talent-assessment/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
A quantified fairness claim. The subgroups are not named, no baseline is given, and the figure is stated as a maximum rather than as a result.
C4. Scored construct named and defined, not described only by outcome
Partial.
The "Mindgage ability test series" is named and described as using "spatial and mental rotational modules with a non-verbal interface".
Source: https://talogy.com/en/knowledge-hub/ai-in-talent-assessment/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
The instrument and its format are named. The construct is not defined publicly.
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://talogy.com/en/knowledge-hub/ai-in-talent-assessment/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
C6. Human oversight documented, with a candidate route to contest a score
Partial.
"Human intervention is still needed when working with AI assessment tools", with recommendations on "establishing key decision makers" and on "how feedback on these decisions is facilitated".
Source: https://talogy.com/en/knowledge-hub/ai-in-talent-assessment/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
Guidance to buyers on oversight. No candidate-facing route to query or contest a score was found.
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://talogy.com/en/knowledge-hub/ai-in-talent-assessment/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
C8. Reliability reported, and reported by group
Absent.
No public source was found for this criterion by the search protocol.
Pages examined include https://talogy.com/en/knowledge-hub/ai-in-talent-assessment/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
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