HomeVendorsTest Partnership
Profile · Vendor·AssessmentScreening

Test Partnership

Test Partnership publishes computer-adaptive aptitude tests, the TPAQ personality questionnaire and MindmetriQ game-based cognitive assessments. Employers review, rank and export the resulting norm-referenced percentile and sten scores in its dashboard, through its API or in integrated ATSs.

HireAIScore rates Test Partnership 50 out of 100 (grade F, Substantial gaps) under rubric v1.0, last reviewed September 25, 2026. Test Partnership ranks 22 of 82 vendors rated in Assessment AI, against a category average of 46. That score is drawn from 32 evidence items across 7 rubric criteria for Test Partnership — 26 with a cited source, 6 recording that nothing was located.

§ 01 - Company facts

Legal name
Test Partnership Ltd
Founded
2012
Headquarters
United Kingdom · GB
Pricing tier
Mid
Market side
Employer-side (AEDT)
Categories
AssessmentScreening
Website
testpartnership.com

These are company details, not findings. They are editable by a verified representative and carry no weight in the score, which is built only from the cited evidence below.

§ 02 - Score breakdown

§ Score breakdown

Category scoring

Weighted contribution shown to the right of each bar.

  1. 01

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Weight 20%

    57

    +11.4 · category avg 50

  2. 02

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Weight 18%

    48

    +8.6 · category avg 41

  3. 03

    FRIA Support

    Weight 15%

    36

    +5.4 · category avg 31

  4. 04

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Weight 15%

    57

    +8.5 · category avg 53

  5. 05

    Human Oversight Design

    Weight 12%

    58

    +7.0 · category avg 55

  6. 06

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Weight 12%

    33

    +4.0 · category avg 38

  7. 07

    Customer Documentation

    Weight 8%

    62

    +5.0 · category avg 58

Category avg is the mean raw score on that criterion across the 82 Assessment AI vendors in scope of this rubric, this one included.

Total weighted score: 49.9(rounded to 50 for display)

§ 03 - Strongest · weakest

Strongest category

Customer Documentation

Raw score 62 · contributes 5.0 to total.

62 against a 58 category average

Weakest category

Post-Market Monitoring

Raw score 33 · contributes 4.0 to total.

33 against a 38 category average

§ 04 - Cited evidence

Download diligence record→

§ Evidence

Cited per category

Every score is backed by at least one cited piece of evidence.

Evidence ledger

Items
32
Documentation
24
Public statement
1
Product feature
1
Absence
6
With a source URL
26 of 32
Source hostnames
3
Fewest items
3
FRIA Support

These figures measure how thoroughly Test Partnership was reviewed, not how Test Partnership performed — an absence row, recording that nothing was located, is counted like any other item.

Article 11 Technical Documentation

5 items57
  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The public 170-page MindmetriQ Technical Manual (v2.0, 22 August 2019), linked from the product page, documents the Rasch/IRT scoring model, the adaptive 'soft item targeting' algorithm (items pitched at a 70% chance of success), automated DIF bias detection, reliability, validity, group differences and the composition of its norm groups.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/fact-sheets/MindmetriQ-Technical-Manual.pdf

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The 94-page Insights Series Technical Manual (first published March 2017) documents the theoretical framework, Rasch calibration, reliability, validity, group differences and norm groups of the computer-adaptive verbal, numerical and inductive tests.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/samplereports/psychometric-properties.pdf

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    A 2026 technical report on the TPAQ-45 and TPAQ-27 personality questionnaires sets out construct validity against the IPIP-NEO-120, HEXACO-PI, CEI and CSE scales, Rasch reliability, group differences and 15 norm groups (the general-population norm has n = 10,935).

    https://www.testpartnership.com/samplereports/tpaq-psychometric-properties.pdf

  • Public statementCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    Test Partnership describes its platform as validated psychometric assessments with 'no AI scoring black box', so it does not present its scoring as AI or machine learning.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/alternatives/hirevue-alternatives.html

  • AbsenceCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    No AI policy, model or system card, EU AI Act technical-documentation mapping, ISO/IEC 42001 certification or AI-specific instructions for use was found in a keyword scan of all 173 sitemap pages. MindmetriQ's published criterion validity is against GCSE grades (n = 125), and none of the three reports includes a job-performance study.

    Have a URL that disputes this?→

Bias Audit Transparency

4 items48
  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The self-authored 2026 TPAQ technical report publishes Cohen's d for gender, age (under vs over 40) and ethnicity (white vs BME) on every personality scale and reports no effect of 0.5 or more.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/samplereports/tpaq-psychometric-properties.pdf

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    Section 9 of the 2019 MindmetriQ manual (restated in a 2026 fact sheet) reports Cohen's d by gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation and disability for each game, including a moderate age effect (d = 0.52) on Number Racer, and tells test users to monitor pass rates against the four-fifths rule.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/fact-sheets/MindmetriQ-Technical-Manual.pdf

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The 2017 Insights manual reports group differences by gender, age (under vs over 50), ethnicity and first language, including d = 0.65 for first language and d = 0.49 for ethnicity on Insights Verbal, and recommends that clients run their own local adverse-impact analyses.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/samplereports/psychometric-properties.pdf

  • AbsenceCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    No independent bias audit (by BABL AI, DCI, ORCAA, Warden AI, Holistic AI or anyone else), NYC Local Law 144 summary or cut-off impact ratios were found: no 'bias audit', 'Local Law' or 'impact ratio' reference appears across the 173 sitemap pages, and guessed Warden AI trust URLs for the vendor return 404.

    Have a URL that disputes this?→

FRIA Support

3 items36
  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The Data Protection page gives clients a controller checklist: avoid automated decisions (and fully explain and justify any they do make), give candidates notices, prepare for subject access requests, minimise data by using candidate IDs, and set retention periods.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/data-protection.html

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The privacy notice says Test Partnership carries out DPIAs before introducing new profiling activities and regularly tests its algorithms and processes for accuracy.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/privacy.html

  • AbsenceCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    No Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment template, EU AI Act deployer-obligation guidance or AI Act reference was found on the data-protection page, the resources hub, the terms, the technical manuals or any of the 173 sitemap pages.

    Have a URL that disputes this?→

Data Governance Disclosure

5 items57
  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The Data Protection page lists its data-handling controls: encryption in transit and at rest, MFA and SSO, role-based access with per-user activity logging, and external penetration testing. Data is stored in the UK and USA on 'UK-based servers with ISO 27001 accreditation', and results are kept for 24 months by default, which clients can change.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/data-protection.html

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The privacy notice (updated 14 January 2026) lists sub-processors with their purpose and data residency (including Cronos Internet for UK main hosting, Kamatera and Kombo in the EU, and Google and HubSpot in the USA), gives ICO registration ZA228041, names an EU representative, and says special category data is not used for profiling.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/privacy.html

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The terms (updated 4 September 2026) include a data-processing schedule, covering approved sub-processors, breach notice 'without undue delay' and customer audit rights. A Schedule C of technical and organisational measures adds Telehouse London primary servers, logging of all access, MFA for admin access, automatic anonymisation per retention settings, and annual staff data-protection training.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/terms.html

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    A Cyber Essentials certificate from CyberSmart/IASME covers Test Partnership Ltd's whole organisation; it was issued on 2 July 2026 and is due for recertification on 2 July 2027.

    https://media.cybersmart.co.uk/user_certification/eda949e266c54c6dbe1378e605f0ba33/b0dc3dca-c149-4f93-990c-d70c82fc9bee_certificate.pdf

  • AbsenceCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    No ISO/IEC 27001 certificate for Test Partnership's own ISMS, no SOC 2 report and no ISO/IEC 42001 certification were found; the site only says its information security policy was developed in line with ISO 27001 principles.

    Have a URL that disputes this?→

Human Oversight Design

5 items58

Post-Market Monitoring

4 items33
  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The MindmetriQ manual describes automated bias detection that regularly runs DIF analysis on every question and flags biased items for investigation and removal, along with ongoing item-bank improvement. This monitoring is internal, and no results are published.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/fact-sheets/MindmetriQ-Technical-Manual.pdf

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The Diversity and Inclusion page says assessments are checked for adverse impact before publication and 'monitored afterwards', but gives no monitoring results or schedule.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/diversity-and-inclusion.html

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The security Q&A lists a Security Incident Management Policy and a Business Continuity Plan (redacted versions available on request) and external penetration testing. The only contact given is the general info@testpartnership.com inbox.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/data-protection.html

  • AbsenceCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    No public status page, incident history, security.txt, dedicated security contact or product/model changelog was found. status.testpartnership.com only returns a Cloudflare 526 error from a wildcard DNS record, and none of the vendor's guessed Statuspage, Instatus or Better Uptime subdomains exists.

    Have a URL that disputes this?→

Customer Documentation

6 items62
  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The Data Protection and GDPR page combines overviews for clients and candidates, a Q&A in the style of a security questionnaire and a checklist for clients as controllers on using the assessments lawfully.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/data-protection.html

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    A public Zendesk help centre with 37 articles covers project set-up, interpreting results, norm groups, Job Fit scores, extra time and FAQs on the Workable integration.

    https://testpartnership.zendesk.com/api/v2/help_center/en-us/articles.json?per_page=100

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    A public API integration guide (version 2.02, 17 March 2026) documents creating candidates, retrieving scores (percentile, sten and z-scores) and PDF reports, and an optional webhook for results.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/api/

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    The resources hub offers the MindmetriQ technical fact sheet, an ability-tests guide and whitepapers, including one on improving fairness and legal defensibility with psychometrics and one on AI resilience in assessments.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/resources.html

  • DocumentationCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    A 2026 guidance article tells employers to ask providers for pass-rate data by demographic group at any cut-off they are considering, and warns that higher cut-offs tend to increase adverse impact.

    https://www.testpartnership.com/blog/impact-cut-off-scores-recruitment.html

  • AbsenceCaptured Sep 25, 2026

    None of the 173 sitemap pages offers deployer guidance on NYC Local Law 144, the EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 or Colorado's automated-decision law.

    Have a URL that disputes this?→

§ 05 - Editorial notes

§ Regulatory frame

What applies to assessment ai.

Assessment is the most-regulated surface in AI hiring. NYC LL 144, EEOC and OFCCP frameworks, Illinois HB 3773, and EU AI Act Annex III §4 all apply, with overlap on bias-audit obligations.

§ Others rated in Assessment AI

All assessment vendors→

Ranked 22 of 82 by weighted total under rubric v1.0. The ordering is arithmetic on the rubric and carries no view on which tool suits a given hiring process.

  1. 19BrightHire51F
  2. 20SHL51F
  3. 21Xobin50F
  4. 22Test PartnershipThis profile50F
  5. 23Versant by Pearson49F
  6. 24Jobma49F

Conflicts of interest

No vendor pays for placement, scoring, or removal. Casework - the consulting firm that operates this directory - provides paid services to some vendors. Any active or recent (within 24 months) commercial relationship is disclosed on the affected vendor profile and the review is reassigned to an independent reviewer. See the full policy on About.

Casework has no commercial relationship with this vendor.