Job interview scoring systems and record-keeping
Using a scoring system and making records of their notes keeps selection interviewers on their toes, and it helps to protect employers from discrimination complaints, according to this part of IRS's guide to current selection interviewing. Other sections
On this page:
The use of scoring systems
When scoring takes place
Keeping interview records
The length of time that interview records are kept
Access requests to see interview notes
Providing feedback to unsuccessful candidates
Table 1: Employers’ use of scoring systems
Table 2: Three examples of interview scoring systems
Box 1: Guidelines for the use of scoring systems
Table 3: Interview records kept by employers and access requests received
|
Key points
|
Informal job interviews and hiring decisions have come under pressure in recent years. Candidates have been given the right under the Data Protection Act 1998 to see the notes that interviewers make about them. Subjective recruitment decisions are vulnerable to legal challenge under the provisions of the various equal opportunities Acts.
A clear trail that provides documentary evidence of its selectors’ assessments and decisions can help protect an employer from such discrimination claims.
The processes required to produce this audit trail can be valuable in their own right. They can encourage selectors to follow good practice by basing their actions and judgments on fair and objective criteria.
The knowledge that their interview notes can be disclosed to candidates can also increase selectors’ determination to act fairly and be seen to do so.
For these and other reasons, good record-keeping is now considered to be an essential part of recruitment and selection.
Scoring systems can greatly help interviewers’ objectivity and record-keeping. More than two-thirds (69.6%) of employers now ensure that their interviewers use them when assessing candidates (see table 1).
The use of scoring systems is greatest in state-owned organisations, encouraged by the legal requirement for such employers to promote equality of opportunity. Eight in 10 public sector bodies use them.
A well-planned and clearly understood scoring system can give those conducting the interview a level of security and confidence in the decisions they make. A structured scoring system can avoid the problems of stereotyping and snap decisions.
Key to the effective use of a scoring system is the extent to which interviewers understand and feel comfortable with the process. All those involved in the interview process should have had the opportunity to go through the scoring system beforehand. Crucially, the interviewers should ensure that they will be adopting the same approach when scoring and rating candidates.
There are many types of scoring system. Table 2 provides three examples of the ways in which responses to interview questions can be scored: a 1-to-5 system; a 0-to-3 scale; and an E-to-A approach.
Some organisations also use a weighting system. This involves identifying aspects of the vacancy that are considered to be particularly important and giving them greater weight in terms of the scoring process.
The weighting feeds through into the total scores awarded to each candidate, helping selectors identify those who provide the best match to the vacancy’s main requirements.
Some guidelines for the use of scoring systems are shown in box 1.
Many interviewers make notes of a candidate’s performance during interview. However, the process of attaching scores to their responses requires deliberation and discussion between the interview panel. Therefore, it is the practice in more than eight in 10 (81.9%) employers that the scoring is undertaken immediately after the interview, rather than during it. Table 1 provides full details.
Only one in 10 (10.6%) employers usually conduct interviews where scoring is undertaken while they are in progress. Scoring while the interview is under way will make it more difficult to concentrate and listen actively to what the candidate is saying. However, it could be feasible when particular interviewers have responsibility for specific aspects of the interview. The other interviewer or interviewers will be able to withdraw slightly and concentrate on allocating their scores.
Few employers encourage procrastination: only 7.5% follow a practice where interview scores are compiled some time after the interview has ended. Delay can slow down the whole hiring process and undermine the scores given to interviewees through inaccurate recall of events.
It is advisable for employers to keep notes of interviews to defend themselves against claims of unfair discrimination from unsuccessful candidates.
The audit trail of hiring decisions should begin at the point at which a job application is received and end with the final appointment. Interview notes and interview scores (see the previous section) represent important aspects of this documentation.
Most employers ensure that the notes made by interviewers during the interview are kept on file. This is the case in more than eight in 10 (85.7%) respondents (see table 3).
However, almost half (46.5%) of all employers go one step further, and supplement the notes taken during the interview with further information recorded later by the interviewers.
Of the 230 employers that supplied us with information about their record-keeping practices, only 2.2% say that they keep no records at all of their job interviews.
The length of time that interview records are kept
Many employers, according to our research, view interview notes and other records as ephemeral documents.
Almost half (46.1%) of the employers we contacted do not keep their records for a full year. A further one in three (33.3%) organisations retain their interview records for between one and two years.
However, one in five employers treat them as long-term archives. Specifically, 11.8% retain their records for three to five years, and 8.8% keep them for more than five years.
Medium- and long-term storage of interview notes may be difficult to justify under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Information Commissioner’s Employment Practices Code (PDF format, 12.13 Mb) (on the website of the Information Commissioner’s Office) says employers should “ensure that no recruitment record is held beyond the statutory period in which a claim arising from the recruitment process may be brought unless there is a clear business reason for exceeding this period”. In most areas of employment legislation, this statutory period is only three months.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) recommends that interview notes of unsuccessful applicants should be retained for a maximum of one year. See Retention of Personnel and Other Related Records, on the CIPD website.
Access requests to see interview notes
More than one in five (22.4%) employers have received requests from candidates to gain access to their interview notes, according to our research (see table 3).
However, the likelihood of employers receiving an access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 varies significantly between different types of organisation. For example, organisations with very large workforces are three times more likely to receive a request from an individual wanting to see their interview notes as a small or medium-sized enterprise (33% compared with 11%).
And state-owned organisations are two-and-a-half times more likely to receive an access request as service sector employers, and seven times more likely to do so than manufacturers (44% compared with 17.5% and 6%, respectively).
Public sector organisations have a high profile in terms of seeking to recruit a diverse workforce in a fair and equitable manner, and this could encourage access requests. Public sector employers also come under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as well as the Data Protection Act 1998. Broadly speaking, the 2000 Act gives everyone the right to request access to information relating to them held by a public body.
In the experience of the employers in our study, candidates are most likely to request access to interview information as a means of obtaining feedback about their performance during the interview process.
Some of the employers we contacted offer feedback as a matter of course, and one organisation has devised a form that it uses for graduate recruitment interviews. Interviewers complete the form after the interview and detailed feedback is subsequently given to candidates over the telephone.
Providing feedback to unsuccessful candidates
When a candidate has been interviewed but not appointed, it is important to let them know of this decision in a timely and professional manner. And, if requested, feedback should be provided about the reasons for this decision and the individual's performance at interview.
The feedback should be as constructive as possible. Candidates who have been interviewed should, wherever possible, be given their feedback by one of the interview team.
Employers should treat unsuccessful candidates like any other clients or customers, and try to ensure that they retain a positive view of the recruitment process. Not only could they be suitable for a future vacancy, but they may also know other suitable candidates.
The feedback should:
This article was written by Noelle Murphy, researcher/writer, Employment Review.
|
Table 1: Employers’ use of scoring systems |
||||
|
Uses scoring system |
Point at which scoring is done |
||
|
During interview |
Directly after interview |
Later1 |
|
All employers |
69.6% |
10.6% |
81.9% |
7.5% |
BROAD ECONOMIC SECTOR |
||||
Private sector services |
69.3% |
10.1% |
83.5% |
6.3% |
Manufacturing and production |
57% |
3% |
86% |
10% |
Public sector |
80% |
15% |
77% |
8% |
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES |
||||
1–249 |
58% |
8% |
89% |
3% |
250–999 |
69% |
12% |
82% |
6% |
1,000+ |
79% |
11% |
77% |
11% |
1. Scoring is undertaken at some points afterwards at general debrief. % of employers. Decimal places are shown for samples of at least 100 organisations. n = 230 (whether uses a scoring system) and n= 160 (point at which scoring is undertaken). Source: IRS. |
||||
|
Table 2: Three examples of interview scoring systems | |
|
Three options for scoring schemes that interviewers can use to mark interviewees’ answers to predefined questions. |
|
Scoring system |
Definition |
OPTION ONE |
|
5 |
Evidence (as provided in the responses from the interviewee) exceeds criteria required for the job role. |
4 |
Evidence meets vacancy’s criteria. |
3 |
Some evidence of meeting vacancy’s criteria. |
2 |
No evidence of meeting vacancy’s criteria. |
1 |
Contrary/negative evidence of meeting vacancy’s criteria. |
OPTION TWO |
|
3 = Very strong evidence |
Candidate’s response clearly demonstrates evidence of high level of achievement of the criteria required for the role. |
2 = Good evidence |
Candidate’s response demonstrates adequate evidence of the criteria required for the role. |
1 = Some positive evidence but falls short |
Candidate’s response demonstrates some evidence of the criteria required, but is assessed as falling short of fully meeting the criteria. |
0 = Little or no evidence |
No evidence to meet the criteria of the role. |
OPTION THREE |
|
A = Outstanding candidate |
Evidence suggests that candidate could be appointed with confidence, having no weaknesses in capabilities or technical competence. |
B = Above-average candidate |
Evidence suggests that candidate could be appointed with reasonable confidence. They have many strengths and no serious weaknesses. |
C = Average candidate |
Evidence suggests that candidate’s strengths outweigh their weaknesses. They could be appointed subject to any special comments noted on the interview plan. |
D = Below-average candidate |
Evidence collected suggests that the candidate has a number of weaknesses in meeting the criteria required for the job. This rating normally represents a rejection. |
E = Definite rejection |
Evidence supplied suggests that candidate’s weaknesses outweigh their strengths to the extent that appointment cannot be recommended. |
Source: IRS. |
|
|
Box 1: Guidelines for the use of scoring systems
Source: IRS. |
|
Table 3: Interview records kept by employers and access requests received |
|||||
|
Nature of interview records |
Access requests1 |
|||
Notes taken during interview |
Notes taken during interview, supplemented later |
Other |
None |
|
|
All employers |
85.7% |
46.5% |
8.3% |
2.2% |
22.4% |
BROAD ECONOMIC SECTOR |
|||||
Private sector services |
85.2% |
51.3% |
7.8% |
0.9% |
17.5% |
Manufacturing and production |
82% |
46% |
6% |
4% |
6% |
Public sector |
89% |
38% |
11% |
3.1% |
44% |
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES |
|||||
1–249 |
80% |
48% |
8% |
3% |
11% |
250–999 |
89% |
40% |
9% |
3% |
19% |
1,000+ |
87% |
50% |
8% |
1% |
33% |
1. Percentage of employers that have received requests from interviewees to gain access to notes made about them during their interview. % of employers. Decimal places are shown for samples of at least 100 organisations. n = 230. Source: IRS. |
|||||
|
Box 2: Other sections Job interviewing: an overview of IRS's research IRS's guide to current practice in selection interviewing is based on feedback from more than 230 employers. This part of the guide provides an overview of its findings, and explains its research methods. Interviewers' roles, responsibilities and training This part of IRS’s guide focuses on the key players in job interviews and the typical number present at each interview. It also examines the training in interviewing skills that employers provide. Question styles and formats of job interviewing This part of IRS's guide finds that telephone interviews are now used by many employers. It also shows that organisations use a battery of question styles and techniques when interviewing candidates, often within the same interview. Job interview structures, schedules and criteria This part of IRS's guide considers the ways in which employers ensure structure, objectivity and fairness in interviewing through the use of interview structures and guides, question lists and assessment aids. |
