Structured interview
An interview in which every candidate is asked the same predetermined questions and their answers are scored against a rubric defined in advance.
Last reviewed
In practice
The two requirements are the same questions and a rubric written before the answers arrive. Drop either and the structure is decorative: same questions with impressionistic scoring, or a rubric applied to whatever each candidate happened to be asked, both collapse back to an unstructured interview.
It consistently outperforms the unstructured version as a predictor of job performance, and the gap is one of the larger and better-replicated effects in selection research. It is also nearly free to adopt, which makes the persistence of the unstructured interview a genuine curiosity.
The usual objection is that structure prevents following up on something interesting. Follow-ups are permitted; what is not permitted is a different core question set per candidate, because that makes the comparison you are about to draw meaningless.
Related
Predictive validity
The extent to which performance on a selection method actually predicts performance on the job, expressed as a correlation.
Work-sample test
A selection method in which a candidate completes a bounded, realistic task drawn from the job, and the output is scored against predefined criteria.
Composite score
A single score combining several weighted assessment components, used to rank candidates on a common scale.
Read further
Longer pieces on this and the arguments around it.
Structured interviews: the highest-return change most teams never make
Same questions, same order, same rubric, scored independently. Structured interviews are unglamorous, uncomfortable to adopt, and the best value in hiring.
Read