Cubiks Assessment Results Explained

SEO title: Cubiks Results Explained: Scores and Reports

Meta description: What Cubiks (Talogy) results contain: per-ability Logiks scores read against a norm group, how PAPI profiles differ, and whether you ever see your report.

Suggested URL: /tests/cubiks-assessment-results-explained

Quick answer

A Cubiks assessment does not produce one number. Because Logiks runs verbal, numerical and abstract reasoning as separately timed blocks, the employer receives ability results broken down by reasoning type, usually alongside an overall general ability indication. If a PAPI personality questionnaire or a situational judgement component was also assigned, those are reported separately again and read in a completely different way.

For the reasoning results, the figure that matters is almost never your raw count of correct answers. Ability tests of this kind are interpreted against a comparison group — a norm group — so what the employer sees is a relative position: how your performance compares with a defined population of people who have taken the same test. Which population is used is chosen for the role, and it changes what any given performance looks like. A result benchmarked against a general working population is not the same as one benchmarked against graduate applicants for a professional role.

PAPI works on entirely different principles and is not pass or fail. It measures a set of personality factors broken down into need and role scales, and produces a profile that an employer reads against what the job demands. In its ipsative form it uses forced choices between statements, which means the output describes the relative strength of your preferences rather than an absolute score. Below, each part of the reporting is unpacked — including the question most candidates actually care about, which is whether you will ever see any of it. You may see either the Cubiks or Talogy name on the report, since Cubiks came under the Talogy brand on 15 March 2022.

What the employer receives from Logiks

The reporting mirrors the structure of the test. Because verbal, numerical and abstract are administered as their own timed blocks, they are scored as their own abilities, and the employer typically sees a result for each alongside a composite general ability indication.

That per-ability breakdown is more informative than a single score, and employers use it that way. A role heavy on data work may weight the numerical result more than the verbal one; a role involving dense written material may do the reverse. It is entirely normal for a candidate to sit clearly above the comparison group on one ability and around the middle on another, and that pattern is itself part of what the report communicates.

Which version you sat also shapes the report. Logiks General Intermediate, commonly published as 50 questions across 12 minutes, is a fast screening-level measure. Logiks General Advanced, commonly published as 30 questions across 20 minutes with a more generous numerical allocation, asks harder questions and is more often used for graduate and professional roles. The standalone single-ability Logiks Advanced tests — commonly reported at 25 minutes for verbal, 25 for numerical and 15 for abstract — produce a deeper result on one ability rather than a spread across three. A recruiter reading a report knows which instrument produced it, and the norm group is chosen accordingly.

Why results are relative, not a mark out of fifty

Raw scores are not meaningful on their own. Answering 34 questions correctly tells an employer nothing until they know how difficult the items were and how other people performed under the same clock.

Norm-referencing solves that. Your performance is positioned against a defined comparison population, and the output expresses relative standing rather than an absolute mark. This is why you should be sceptical of anyone quoting a Cubiks "pass mark" as though it were fixed — the same performance can read very differently depending on which group it is measured against and what the employer expects for the role.

The comparison group question matters more than candidates realise. Being benchmarked against a broad working-adult population produces a different figure from being benchmarked against applicants to a competitive graduate scheme, because the second group is more selected. Two candidates comparing percentiles almost never know whether they were measured against the same population, which makes the comparison close to meaningless.

It also explains a common source of confusion. A candidate who felt they answered most items correctly can still receive a middling relative result if the comparison group is strong — and a candidate who ran out of time in the abstract block, as most people do, may still land well. Nothing has gone wrong in either case. A norm-referenced measure is doing exactly what it is built to do.

How the PAPI report reads differently

PAPI is not scored as pass or fail, and treating it as a test to be beaten leads candidates astray.

It measures a set of personality factors broken down into need and role scales — what you are inclined to seek out at work and how you tend to operate. The output is a profile: a description of preferences and working style that an employer reads against the demands of the role. A profile is not right or wrong, and the same profile can be a strong fit for one job and a poor fit for another.

The two formats produce subtly different things. The normative version presents a large set of statements you rate on a scale, which allows comparison between candidates. The ipsative version presents groups of statements and asks which is most and which is least like you — a forced-choice design that describes the relative strength of your own preferences rather than positioning you against others. Candidates often find the ipsative form uncomfortable precisely because several options feel partly true, and being forced to choose feels arbitrary. That discomfort is a feature of the design rather than a sign you are answering badly.

Many employers use the PAPI output after a shortlist exists rather than as a screen — as structured interview material, generating probes for the areas the profile raises. If you progress to an interview after a Cubiks stage, expect some questions that track back to how you answered.

Why comparing results with other candidates rarely works

Candidates naturally swap notes, and with Cubiks the comparison breaks down for several reasons at once.

The version differs. A result from Logiks General Intermediate is not comparable with one from Advanced, and neither is comparable with a standalone single-ability Logiks Advanced test. People quoting numbers almost never say which they sat.

The assigned combination differs. One employer may assign Logiks General alone; another adds PAPI; another adds a situational judgement component. Those processes are measuring different things and reaching different decisions.

The comparison group differs, and it is chosen for the role. Without knowing which population a percentile was calculated against, the number has no anchor.

The employer's use of the result differs. Some treat ability results as a hard screen, some weight abilities by relevance to the role, and some use them alongside interviews as one input among several. None of this is usually published, so identical results can produce different outcomes at two companies.

And the sample you see online skews. Candidates who progress comfortably rarely post about it; candidates who were rejected and are trying to make sense of it often do. That makes thresholds look both more precise and more punishing than they are.

Will you be shown your results?

Usually not in detail. Most employers release a progression decision rather than a report, for the same reasons they withhold other assessment data: results are calibrated to a role and a comparison group, releasing them invites disputes about interpretation, and providing individual feedback at volume is not resourced.

There are real exceptions. Some employers, particularly on graduate schemes and in markets where candidate experience is competitive, provide a summary. Ability and personality assessment feedback is also an area where professional practice in some jurisdictions encourages giving candidates something, so asking once — politely, via the recruitment contact named on your invitation — is a reasonable thing to do. Keep it short: your name, the role and reference, and a request for any feedback available.

If you receive something, read it structurally rather than emotionally. "Below the level required on numerical reasoning for this role" is a precise instruction about where to put your next fortnight of preparation. It is not a statement about your general ability, because it describes one block, one comparison group, one role and one day.

How long results take and what to do meanwhile

Scoring itself is effectively immediate for the Logiks blocks — these are machine-scored and the employer has the output very soon after you submit. Any wait you experience is the employer's process rather than the assessment.

That process varies enormously. Employers hiring on a rolling basis may move within days. Employers running a scheme with a fixed application window often batch-review after it closes, which can mean weeks of silence with no bearing on your performance. Where a PAPI or situational judgement component is included, some employers wait until the full set is in before reviewing anything. If your invitation stated an expected timeframe, trust that over anything you read on a forum; if it has clearly passed, one short follow-up to the recruitment contact is reasonable.

Whatever the outcome, spend ten minutes the same day writing your own debrief: which blocks you sat, which felt slow, whether you ran out of time in the abstract block, and which question types caused trouble. Because Logiks material appears across many employers and the block structure is stable, that note is directly useful the next time an invitation lands — and considerably more actionable than a score report you were never going to receive.

How TestSolve can help

TestSolve lets candidates practise realistic question types, see worked explanations, and review their mistakes before a real online assessment. Since Cubiks results usually arrive as a yes or a no with no detail attached, the practical way to get diagnostic information is to generate it beforehand: drill Logiks-style verbal, numerical and abstract blocks separately under time pressure, then read the worked explanations for the items you missed or solved too slowly.

That gives you what an employer's report would not — a per-ability picture of where your marks and your minutes are actually going. Reviewing mistakes across a batch shows whether the gap is data-reading in the numerical block, over-inferring in the verbal block, or an unfamiliar rule set in abstract, and each needs different work. Knowing which one applies to you is far more useful than knowing a percentile you cannot interpret.

Frequently asked questions

TestSolve is independent and not affiliated with any test provider or employer named on this page. All product names and trademarks belong to their respective owners.