Interview scorecard template

ASE Automotive Technician interview scorecard

Evaluate ASE Automotive Technician candidates across 4 weighted areas: hands-on competence, safety discipline, fault finding, and reliability and conduct. Hands-on competence leads at 35%, so check which ASE certifications they hold (A1 to A8, L1 advanced engine performance) and what repairs they perform daily: timing chains, transmission R and R, alignments, EVAP. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
skilled trades technical operationsase certificationbrake and suspensionengine driveabilityobd ii diagnostics
TL;DR
For hands-on competence, look for evidence the candidate holds current ASE Master or L1 status and names specific jobs recently completed, including flat-rate hours and torque specs used. For safety discipline, look for evidence the candidate describes de-energizing an EV pack before service, verifies with a meter, and refuses shortcuts on lift points or wheel torque. 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

Hands-on competence

35% weight

Check which ASE certifications they hold (A1 to A8, L1 advanced engine performance) and what repairs they perform daily: timing chains, transmission R and R, alignments, EVAP repairs.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names the equipment, materials, and tolerances they work to
  • Can describe a job start to finish without hand-waving the hard parts
  • Holds the tickets, licences, or certifications the work requires, and they are current
  • Knows what they are not qualified to touch

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot describe the work concretely; lacks required tickets or licences.

2
Needs Improvement

Basic familiarity; needs supervision on routine tasks.

3
Satisfactory

Competent on standard work; slower or unsure on unfamiliar jobs.

4
Very Good

Skilled and independent across the normal range of the role.

5
Excellent

Holds current ASE Master or L1 status and names specific jobs recently completed, including flat-rate hours and torque specs used.

02
Evaluation factor

Safety discipline

30% weight

Probe lift and jack stand discipline, hybrid or EV high voltage lockout practice, respirator and glove use with brake dust, refrigerant handling, and Section 609 certification.

Evidence to listen for

  • Treats procedure as protection rather than paperwork
  • Can describe a time they stopped work and why
  • Knows the specific hazards of this trade and the controls for each
  • Reports near misses instead of hiding them

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Casual about safety; describes shortcuts with pride.

2
Needs Improvement

Follows procedure when watched; cannot name the hazards that matter.

3
Satisfactory

Sound safety habits; less certain on unfamiliar hazards.

4
Very Good

Safety is instinctive; can describe stopping work over a real concern.

5
Excellent

Describes de-energizing an EV pack before service, verifies with a meter, and refuses shortcuts on lift points or wheel torque.

03
Evaluation factor

Fault finding

20% weight

Test how they diagnose an intermittent misfire or parasitic draw: scan tool used (Snap-on Zeus, Autel, OEM scan), live data, freeze frame, wiring diagram tracing.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has a method for narrowing a fault rather than swapping parts
  • Reads schematics, manuals, or error codes and acts on them
  • Knows when to escalate rather than guess
  • Can describe a fault that took real work to find

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Parts-swapper; no diagnostic method.

2
Needs Improvement

Fixes symptoms; cannot explain how they found the cause.

3
Satisfactory

Solid on familiar faults; less structured on new ones.

4
Very Good

Clear systematic method with a real hard-fault story.

5
Excellent

Walks a logical path from symptom to confirmed root cause using pressure or scope data, avoiding parts-swapping guesswork.

04
Evaluation factor

Reliability and conduct

15% weight

Assess comeback rate, flat-rate efficiency numbers, how they document findings on repair orders, and how they explain declined work to service advisers and customers.

Evidence to listen for

  • Turns up, on time, prepared
  • Handles shift work, callouts, or travel as the role requires
  • Documents work so the next person can pick it up
  • Deals with customers or site staff professionally

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Unreliable attendance; unprofessional on site.

2
Needs Improvement

Inconsistent; documentation is an afterthought.

3
Satisfactory

Dependable; paperwork is adequate.

4
Very Good

Consistently reliable, documents well, professional with customers.

5
Excellent

Cites low comeback history, consistent efficiency above one hundred percent, and clean documented ROs with photos or video evidence.

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