Interview Scorecard Template
A practical interview evaluation form for recording job-related evidence, ratings and follow-up questions. Use the General, Engineering, Sales or Manager scorecard, or adapt the editable Word and CSV templates to your role.
Updated
Download a blank interview evaluation form
The Word file contains four blank role forms and a clearly fictional completed example. The CSV contains 24 blank evaluation rows, six for each role. Both are editable, ungated downloads. They contain no macros or candidate data. The CSV is a plain-text template, not an automated scoring workbook.
Set the rubric before the interview
A scorecard organises ratings. A useful interview evaluation form also records the question asked, the answer or work sample observed, what remains unknown and who will review it. Start with the job requirements, then agree which interview stage will assess each one. The six dimensions and anchors below are Treegarden's suggested starting points, not validated selection instruments or universal hiring standards.
For the same role and stage, use consistent questions and rating standards. That principle is described in OPM's structured interview guidance. Adapt wording to the actual work and review accessibility before using the form.
These browser forms add six equally weighted ratings, each from 1 to 5, for a maximum of 30. An unanswered dimension contributes nothing to the subtotal; it is not a zero rating or evidence of poor performance. Check the rated count before comparing totals. There are no adjustable weights on this page. Record missing evidence in the notes. Use fictional data here: the form does not save a candidate record in Treegarden, and refreshing may clear your entries. Keep completed evaluations in your approved hiring system.
General interview scorecard
| Dimension | Behavioural Anchors | Score (1–5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication | 1: Explanation omits the task's main issue or next action 3: Explains the issue and next action for the intended audience 5: Explains a complex trade-off and checks the audience has enough information to act |
||
| Problem-Solving | 1: No structured approach, jumps to conclusions without analysis 3: Follows a logical framework, considers trade-offs 5: Novel solutions, anticipates edge cases, explains reasoning clearly |
||
| Working Practices | 1: Described handover omits an agreed owner or next step 3: Describes a clear handover and checks shared understanding 5: Anticipates handover risks and verifies the receiving team can act |
||
| Self-Awareness | 1: Described retrospective repeats a failed approach without reviewing why 3: Identifies a specific improvement and a practical next step 5: Tests an improvement and explains the evidence used to review its result |
||
| Motivation for Role | 1: No clear reason for applying, generic answers about the company 3: Genuine interest in the role, has done basic research 5: Strong research, specific and compelling reasons aligned to this exact role and career stage |
||
| Coachability | 1: Defensive to feedback, justifies all past decisions 3: Open to feedback, can cite a time they changed approach based on input 5: Actively seeks feedback, can demonstrate growth trajectory through specific examples |
Engineering interview scorecard
| Dimension | Behavioural Anchors | Score (1–5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Skills | 1: Fundamental gaps in the required stack, cannot reason about basic data structures 3: Solid in the primary language/stack, handles standard problems with guidance 5: Deep expertise in primary stack, strong secondary skills, identifies non-obvious edge cases |
||
| System Design | 1: No experience designing systems, cannot reason about scalability trade-offs 3: Can design a system for a known pattern, considers load and failure scenarios 5: Designs for scale, data consistency, observability, and operational simplicity simultaneously |
||
| Code Quality & Standards | 1: Does not consider readability, testability, or maintainability 3: Writes clean, testable code, follows team conventions 5: Sets the standard for code quality on the team, actively improves tooling and review culture |
||
| Debugging Approach | 1: Trial and error without hypothesis, cannot isolate variables 3: Systematic approach, uses tooling effectively, narrows scope methodically 5: Fast hypothesis generation, excellent use of profilers/logs, explains reasoning transparently |
||
| Communication of Technical Concepts | 1: Cannot explain technical decisions to non-technical stakeholders 3: Adapts explanations appropriately, uses analogies when helpful 5: Translates complex concepts with precision and patience, builds shared understanding across the room |
||
| Learning Agility | 1: Repeats the initial approach after the exercise provides conflicting evidence 3: Uses new information to revise an approach and explain the change 5: Tests the revised approach and identifies where the new knowledge does and does not apply |
Sales interview scorecard
| Dimension | Behavioural Anchors | Score (1–5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery Skills | 1: Pitches immediately without asking questions, no curiosity about buyer situation 3: Asks relevant questions, listens to answers, connects findings to solution 5: Deep, multi-layered discovery, uncovers unstated needs, makes buyer feel understood before pitching |
||
| Objection Handling | 1: Becomes defensive or concedes immediately, no structure 3: Acknowledges, validates, then redirects — confident under standard objections 5: Reframes objections as opportunities, uses them to deepen the relationship and advance the deal |
||
| Agreed Next Steps | 1: Leaves the fictional sales conversation without checking the buyer's next step 3: Checks the decision process and agrees a realistic next step 5: Confirms owner, timeline and decision criteria while respecting a buyer's decision not to proceed |
||
| Pipeline Discipline | 1: Cannot articulate pipeline metrics, inconsistent follow-up habits 3: Maintains a clean CRM, can describe pipeline health and stage velocity with confidence 5: Owns pipeline hygiene as a habit, proactively surfaces at-risk deals, has a system for every follow-up |
||
| Coachability | 1: Defensive about losing deals, attributes failure to external factors only 3: Reflects on losses constructively, implements manager feedback without resistance 5: Seeks coaching proactively, can articulate exactly what they changed after each loss and what the result was |
||
| Sales Collaboration | 1: Described handover omits relevant buyer requirements 3: Shares accurate requirements and agrees ownership with colleagues 5: Anticipates delivery risks and resolves unclear commitments before handover |
Manager interview scorecard
| Dimension | Behavioural Anchors | Score (1–5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| People Leadership | 1: Described development plan allocates tasks without feedback or review 3: Agrees development goals and reviews progress with team members 5: Explains how feedback and opportunities were adapted and how progress was checked |
||
| Strategic Thinking | 1: Operational focus only, cannot connect team work to company strategy 3: Understands how team objectives connect to company goals, can prioritise strategically 5: Defines the strategy, anticipates shifts, influences company direction beyond their direct function |
||
| Conflict Resolution | 1: Avoids conflict or escalates everything, no examples of direct resolution 3: Addresses conflict directly and privately, finds workable solutions, preserves relationships 5: Facilitates resolution that leaves both parties stronger, addresses root causes, prevents recurrence |
||
| Communication | 1: Inconsistent messaging, team often unclear on direction or priorities 3: Clear direction-setting, consistent updates, open to two-way dialogue 5: Creates radical clarity at all levels — IC to board — adapts medium and cadence to audience and urgency |
||
| Delivery Track Record | 1: Projects often late or descoped, poor estimates, team misses commitments 3: Consistent delivery against plan, flags risks early, good estimation track record 5: Delivers on stretch goals reliably, builds buffers intelligently, known as someone who ships |
||
| Team Working Practices | 1: Described process leaves team concerns without a response or owner 3: Sets clear working agreements and follows up on raised concerns 5: Checks whose input is missing and uses evidence to improve the team's working agreements |
A fictional completed interview evaluation form
This invented example uses the General form for a fictional operations coordinator role. Candidate Example A and Interviewer Example B are placeholders, not real people or customer results. The panel had agreed to assess handovers, prioritisation and collaboration through the same scenarios for this role.
| Dimension | Rating | Fictional evidence and follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| Communication | 4 | Explained a delayed handover with an owner and next action. Did not check whether the receiving team had understood the revised deadline. |
| Problem-Solving | 3 | Compared two scheduling options and named a capacity trade-off. Escalation handling needs a follow-up question. |
| Working Practices | 4 | Described recording an owner and checking a handover with the receiving colleague. Evidence did not cover a multi-team failure. |
| Self-Awareness | 3 | Identified an unclear status update and described changing its format. The reported outcome was not independently verified. |
| Motivation for Role | 4 | Connected the role's coordination duties to a specific work preference. This is context, not proof of future performance. |
| Coachability | 3 | Used feedback to revise the scenario response. There was no further exercise to test the revised approach. |
Illustrative total: 21 / 30, with 6 of 6 dimensions rated. The fictional human reviewer records: "Review the handover evidence with the panel. Ask the agreed escalation question if this evidence is still missing. Do not infer an offer or rejection from 21 points." This number is not a benchmark, recommended cutoff or hiring threshold. Ratings 2 and 4 represent evidence between the illustrated anchors and need an explanation too.
Read the evidence before the total
As a recommendation, distinguish an observed limitation from a topic that was never assessed. If five criteria have ratings of 4 and the sixth is blank, the form shows a subtotal of 20, not a completed "20 out of 30" assessment. Do not rank that subtotal against a fully assessed candidate without addressing the missing evidence. Keep the original interview observations separate from later panel conclusions.
Do not create a universal pass mark from the sample scale. Decide any selection rules through the employer's job-related assessment process before use, with appropriate professional review. The EEOC's selection guidance explains employer responsibilities for appropriate validation, job-relatedness, adverse impact and reasonable accommodation in the United States. This template is not legal advice or a compliance certification; other jurisdictions require their own review.
Adapt the form without losing comparability
- Define each criterion in terms of observable work. Replace vague personality or "culture fit" judgments with relevant tasks and working practices.
- Agree anchors, questions and any weighting before interviewing. This browser form uses equal weights. The downloads are editable forms with no calculation formulas or automated recommendations.
- Give each interviewer only criteria their stage can assess. Record unassessed items and follow-up owners instead of filling gaps with assumptions.
- Keep job-related evidence and human conclusions traceable. Exclude unrelated personal information and store completed forms under your organisation's access and retention rules.
After the interview loop, use the interview debrief agenda and decision record to discuss discrepancies and assign outstanding actions. For a candidate-linked software workflow, review Treegarden's interview management and ask for a demonstration of scorecard creation, updates and downloads. Treegarden publishes this resource and sells recruitment software; that is our commercial interest. We do not claim that a numeric score makes a hiring decision objective or that the product enforces independent note visibility.
Review your interview workflow with Treegarden
Bring your rubric and see how candidate-linked scorecards fit your team's review process.
Book a demo →Frequently Asked Questions
What is an interview scorecard?
An interview scorecard is an evaluation form that records job-related criteria, ratings and the evidence behind them. An interview evaluation form can also include unanswered questions, follow-up actions and a human review. A total score is a summary, not a hiring decision.
How many dimensions should an interview scorecard have?
Use the criteria needed to assess the actual job and the assigned interview stage. These templates use six dimensions as an editable starting point, not a research-backed optimum. Remove overlap and give each interviewer criteria they can meaningfully assess.
How can a team reduce bias in interview scorecards?
Agree job-related criteria and rating anchors before interviewing, use consistent questions for the same role and stage, and write evidence before group discussion. Review accessibility and selection outcomes too. No template eliminates bias. Independent note writing is a process recommendation, not a promise that this page or Treegarden hides colleagues' ratings.
Should all interviewers use the same scorecard?
Use a consistent rubric for candidates applying to the same role at the same stage. Different interview stages can assess different job requirements. Agree ownership beforehand and record not assessed when a stage does not provide evidence, rather than inventing a low rating.