Interview scorecard template

Administrative Assistant (VA) interview scorecard

Evaluate Administrative Assistant (VA) candidates across four weighted areas: execution and reliability, improving the process, judgement and autonomy, and communication. Execution and reliability leads at 35%, so check how they run inboxes and calendars across time zones: Google Workspace or Outlook rules, Calendly links, travel bookings, expense filing in Expensify, and typical. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
operations administrationcalendar managementinbox triageremote supportvirtual assistant
TL;DR
For execution and reliability, look for evidence the candidate names concrete volumes (300 emails triaged daily, 12 executives' calendars) and the tools and rules used to keep zero backlog. For improving the process, look for evidence the candidate points to a documented SOP or automation they created, with the hours saved weekly and who else now uses it. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Execution and reliability

35% weight

Check how they run inboxes and calendars across time zones: Google Workspace or Outlook rules, Calendly links, travel bookings, expense filing in Expensify, and typical daily ticket or email volume.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes a workload they owned and how they kept it from slipping
  • Names the tools and systems they ran day to day
  • Can talk about volume: tickets, inboxes, orders, uptime
  • Nothing quietly falls through when they are busy

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot describe their own workload; things slip without them noticing.

2
Needs Improvement

Handles routine volume; drops work under pressure.

3
Satisfactory

Reliable on steady-state work; struggles when volume spikes.

4
Very Good

Consistently reliable at real volume with a system for staying on top.

5
Excellent

Names concrete volumes (300 emails triaged daily, 12 executives' calendars) and the tools and rules used to keep zero backlog.

02
Evaluation factor

Improving the process

25% weight

Probe for automation they built themselves: Zapier or Make flows, email templates, Notion or Asana trackers, SOP documents written so another assistant could take the desk over.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has changed a process rather than only following one
  • Can name what was slow or error-prone and what they did about it
  • Documents so the improvement survives them
  • Knows when a process is worth automating and when it is not

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Follows instructions only; no sense that process can change.

2
Needs Improvement

Notices problems but escalates rather than solving.

3
Satisfactory

Makes small improvements; impact is local and undocumented.

4
Very Good

Has redesigned a real process with measurable effect.

5
Excellent

Points to a documented SOP or automation they created, with the hours saved weekly and who else now uses it.

03
Evaluation factor

Judgement and autonomy

25% weight

Test decisions made without the manager present: declining meeting requests, resolving double bookings, handling an angry client email, spending limits, and when they escalate versus act.

Evidence to listen for

  • Knows what to decide alone and what to escalate
  • Handles an exception without freezing or improvising recklessly
  • Protects confidentiality and access appropriately
  • Asks a clarifying question rather than guessing on something costly

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Either escalates everything or acts recklessly on their own.

2
Needs Improvement

Needs frequent direction; uneasy with exceptions.

3
Satisfactory

Sound judgement on familiar decisions.

4
Very Good

Clear sense of their own authority; handles exceptions well.

5
Excellent

Draws a clear line between decisions they own and escalate, citing a real judgement call and the rule they applied.

04
Evaluation factor

Communication

15% weight

Assess async written clarity and discretion: Slack or Loom updates across time zones, minute taking, handling payroll or contract data, and confidentiality agreements they have worked under.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes clearly enough that people act without a follow-up
  • Manages expectations before a deadline slips, not after
  • Handles a frustrated colleague or customer calmly
  • Works across time zones or async where the role needs it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Unclear written communication; goes quiet when things slip.

2
Needs Improvement

Communication needs chasing; raises problems late.

3
Satisfactory

Clear enough day to day; proactive updates are inconsistent.

4
Very Good

Clear, proactive, and calm under pressure.

5
Excellent

Writes tight status updates, confirms deadlines in writing, and describes concrete habits protecting confidential executive information.

Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards