INTERVIEW RATING FORM - NON-ACADEMIC POSTS
POST:
VACANCY:
Essential
1
Education & Qualifications
2
Experience
3
Other Skills/Knowledge
4
Presentation
5
Personal Qualities
6
Special Factors and other Requirements
CANDIDATE:
Desirable
Marks
Weighted
Score
REMARKS
TOTAL
MARKS
1-2 = Very Poor
3-4 = Poor
5-6 = Average
7-8 = Good
9-10 = Very Good
SIGNATURE _______________________________________________________
DATE
___________________________________
MARKING SCALE – NON-ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS
An Appointments Panel's responsibility is to judge the candidate's suitability for the appointment for which it
has been convened to make recommendations. Each candidate should be assessed and awarded a mark
from the scale given after the interview and before the next candidate is seen. Appointments Panels are
urged to make use of the full range of the scale.
After completing a small number of interviews, the panel members may individually review their markings
and, if necessary, adjust those provisionally given to the first candidates to bring them into line with a
general standard that has been developed.
Candidates should be assessed against the criteria defined on the Employee Specification/Job Description.
Each post will have its own profile and it is important that candidates are rated against this profile. To allow
flexibility weighting of individual factors can be used. This will simply involve multiplying scores on a
particular factor by 1, 2 or 3 to ensure Panels can lay sufficient emphasis on factors which are deemed to be
of particular importance to the post in question. Weightings should be decided in advance of the interview,
preferably at shortlisting, and should be recorded on the Interview Rating Form.
Before completing factors 1 and 2 advice should be taken from the subject expert(s).
Panel members should use the full range of the scale and different marks should be given to candidates
with observable differences in quality.
Panel members should record their reasons for awarding marks in the 'remarks' column. Panel members
should ensure that there is a consistency between their remarks and the scores.
The Panel ranking is an agreed ranking reflecting the consensus view of the Panel and is not an arithmetic
mean.