The Interview Evaluation Template is a systematic measurement tool used after (and sometimes during) interviews to record behavioral evidence and evaluate the candidate according to predefined criteria directly linked to the job’s requirements. The goal is not to “gather impressions,” but to turn observations into comparable data across evaluators and time periods, supporting hiring decisions and documenting their rationale.

Free-form notes vary greatly among evaluators and are influenced by biases. A unified template imposes a common evaluation language, a clear rating scale, and boundaries to reduce discrepancies among individuals. This improves reliability, makes the “yes/no” decision legally defensible, and facilitates comparisons between candidates without falling into traps of first impressions.

It is preferable that it includes:

• Clear competencies/criteria derived from the job description (e.g., analytical thinking, problem solving, teamwork, cultural fit, leadership).

• Labeled rating scales (Likert or BARS) with guiding descriptors clarifying what each score means.

• Weight percentages for each criterion reflecting its importance.

• A behavioral evidence field to document real examples (what the candidate said/did).

• A justified final recommendation (proceed/waitlist/reject) with brief reasons.

Start by analyzing the critical job tasks and translating them into observable behaviors. For example: “stakeholder management” translates into behaviors such as setting expectations clearly, resolving conflict, and effective communication. Then assign labeled performance ratings to each behavior, and adjust weight percentages according to its impact on outcomes (for example, giving a higher weight to negotiation in sales).

The 1-5 numerical scale is common and easy, but prone to interpretational differences. BARS connects each rating level to a specific behavioral description, reducing misunderstanding between evaluators and increasing fairness of measurement. In sensitive or leadership roles, BARS is preferred, or a combination: a numerical scale with brief behavioral reference criteria.

Biases like halo effect, horns effect, affinity bias, recency, confirmation bias affect judgement. They are countered by the template by:

• Unifying interview questions and criteria.

• Requiring documentation of evidence before assigning a rating.

• Using multiple evaluators with prior calibration.

• Delaying the final recommendation until all dimensions are covered.

• Automatically reviewing outlier or unjustified ratings in the HR management system.

Calibration refers to aligning understanding of scores among evaluators. Reliability is improved through short training using pre-rated examples, periodic review sessions, and tracking metrics like inter-rater agreement. For evaluators with a chronic discrepancy, provide feedback or reassign their evaluation roles.

Provide each panel member with an independent evaluation template to record their evidence first, then aggregate the scores automatically. Hold a structured debrief starting with the evidence, review large divergences, confirm alignment with requirements, document the panel decision and reasons. This prevents a “loudest voice wins” scenario and creates a jointly accountable, auditable decision.

Ask candidates for behavioral examples (Situation/Task, Action, Result). Note key phrases in the evidence field, then rate the relevant competency according to reference criteria. This links question, evidence, and rating, reducing jumping to general judgments.

The interview evaluation template does not replace technical assessments but complements them. Include technical scores as an additional criterion with clear weight, or keep them separate then combine in a final decision panel. It’s important decision-makers understand how each tool influences the final rating to avoid duplication or inflation.

Treat interview evaluations as sensitive personal data. Restrict access by role, retain time-stamped signed records, define a clear retention and deletion policy, notify candidates about their data usage per local law. Audit records help respond to objections or appeals.

Monitor:

• Completion rates of templates and clarity of evidence.

• Time to decision after interview.

• Variance among evaluators for the same candidate.

• Quality of hire (performance after 6-12 months, retention).

• Legal issues or complaints related to selection.

Continuous improvements indicate the template captures the right signals rather than randomness.

Add dimensions measuring video time management, clarity of non-verbal communication given constraints, and technical readiness. Include a field to document connectivity issues (dropouts, delays) so candidates aren’t penalized. For recorded interviews, provide a criterion to assess logical structure and conciseness.

• Too many small criteria which dilute focus; choose the most significant and link them to business outcomes.

• Missing benchmark criteria making numbers vague.

• Confusing “personal likability” with “job fit.”

• Writing general comments (“good”) without evidence.

• Making a decision too early and then adjusting scores to justify it.

 

1. Initial design linked to the job description.

2. Brief training for evaluators on using the template and example items.

3. Pilot test and review feedback.

4. Roll-out supported by clear policies.

5. Quarterly improvements based on usage data and results.

It depends on the company policy and legal context. Sharing high-level constructive feedback may improve employer brand, but it is better to avoid disclosing detailed scores or comparisons between candidates. If feedback is given, let it be behavioral, neutral, and useful going forward.

• Technical roles: Increase weights for problem solving and technical rigor, include simulations or task exercises.

• Sales & client relations: Focus on influence, negotiation, objection handling.

• Leadership roles: Include strategic thinking, team enabling, change management.

• Service / operations: Make reliability, safety, service quality core dimensions.

Structure remains fixed, but weightings and reference criteria change.

Analyze results across segments (level, department, gender when legally permissible) to spot unjustified gaps. Review questions that produce consistent differences unrelated to role and adjust weighting or phrasing. Having internal appeal paths for evaluators enhances governance.

• Communication: Structures ideas clearly, checks understanding, adapts message to audience.

• Problem solving: Identifies root causes, proposes alternatives, tests trade-offs.

• Collaboration: Listens, allocates roles, resolves conflict respectfully.

• Leadership: Sets direction, empowers team, makes accountable decisions.

• Cultural/values fit: Adheres to transparency, acts ethically, respects diversity.

Weightings are used when not all criteria in a role have equal impact on outcomes. Choose them based on work analysis and historical performance data. Example: “Safety” might carry a higher weight in an industrial setting compared to “presentation skills”.

Conduct a structured evaluation session: start with evidence, review divergent scores, confirm alignment with requirements, document the committee decision and reasons, then update the question bank based on lessons learned. Such closure improves selection accuracy in subsequent cohorts and avoids repeating design flaws.