Candidates answer structured questions designed to surface job relevant behaviors. Their responses are scored against well defined competencies. Because scoring is anchored in predefined logic, it is applied consistently, and individual candidate backgrounds do not influence results. Each score can be traced back to the underlying competency and the specific responses behind it, which makes the system easier to explain to both recruiters and candidates.

A good assessment must show consistent measurement. We run item reviews and pilot testing before releasing any assessment. Once live, we track indicators like internal consistency and general stability of scores over time. Items that underperform or show unclear patterns are revised or removed. Reliability is something we check regularly rather than treat as a one time task.

Bias mitigation starts early in development. Items are reviewed for clarity and cultural fairness, and we run statistical checks such as differential item functioning to see whether certain groups respond differently for reasons unrelated to the job. Items that raise concerns are adjusted or replaced.
During actual use, all candidates receive the same instructions and scoring rules. Automated scoring ensures the same logic is applied to everyone.
After deployment, we track trends in item performance and overall scoring patterns. If something looks off, we investigate and update the assessment to prevent issues from persisting.

We also monitor for potential adverse impact. This includes checking score patterns and key decision points to identify where certain groups might be disproportionately affected. Our approach follows the expectations outlined in the EEOC Uniform Guidelines, including use of the four fifths guideline as a helpful screening tool. If we spot possible adverse impact, we review the items involved, the scoring logic, and any downstream decision steps with the customer. These checks are part of our ongoing validation work, not an occasional audit.

HiPeople Assessments support compliance with major hiring regulations. In the United States, our validation philosophy aligns with the EEOC Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. In Europe and other regions, we follow GDPR principles such as fairness, transparency, and candidate rights. Our approach also aligns with ISO 10667 for assessment delivery and ISO 31000 for risk management. These frameworks help ensure our methods fit into the compliance expectations of enterprise environments.

Our work is grounded in clear ethical principles. We focus on transparency, objectivity, and respect for candidates. Assessments are written in straightforward language and avoid stereotyping. Scoring logic is documented, and we keep a clear record of how items evolve. These principles help us maintain trust with both candidates and customers.

Assessments support decision making, but they do not make decisions for hiring teams. Recruiters and hiring managers stay in control and can interpret results alongside other parts of the hiring process. Candidates may request insight into their results and clarify context when necessary. This approach fits the expectations set by GDPR and other regulatory frameworks.

We pay close attention to candidate experience. Assessments are written to be accessible and easy to follow. Timing expectations are reasonable, and the format avoids trick items or unnecessary stress. Our goal is to help candidates show their strengths in a fair and honest way.

All assessments, including ours, have natural limitations. They measure specific competencies and should be interpreted with that in mind. Human context matters. We monitor assessments continuously and refine them as more data becomes available, which helps keep them accurate and fair over time.