Evaluate Digital Well-Being Specialist candidates across 4 weighted areas: subject and technical command, how they actually teach, group management and safeguarding, and progress and communication. Subject and technical command leads at 30%, so check command of screen-time research, problematic use scales (e.g. BSMAS, IGD-20), platform recommender mechanics, and frameworks like Ofcom media. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
education coachingdigital literacydigital wellbeingonline safetyscreen time
TL;DR
For subject and technical command, look for evidence the candidate cites specific evidence and instruments, distinguishes correlation from harm claims, and names platform design features that drive compulsive use. For how they actually teach, look for evidence the candidate describes concrete session structures with activities, resources used, and how delivery shifted for age group, neurodivergence, or parent audiences.
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
Subject and technical command
30% weight
Check command of screen-time research, problematic use scales (e.g. BSMAS, IGD-20), platform recommender mechanics, and frameworks like Ofcom media literacy or the eSafety curriculum.
Evidence to listen for
Knows the material or discipline well beyond the level they teach
Holds the qualifications, licences, or certifications required, and they are current
Can answer an unexpected question honestly rather than bluffing
Keeps learning in their own field
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Knowledge barely ahead of the learners; bluffs when asked something unexpected.
2
Needs Improvement
Adequate on the syllabus only; gaps show under questioning.
3
Satisfactory
Solid command of the material for the level taught.
4
Very Good
Depth well beyond the taught level; comfortable being asked anything.
5
Excellent
Cites specific evidence and instruments, distinguishes correlation from harm claims, and names platform design features that drive compulsive use.
02
Evaluation factor
How they actually teach
30% weight
Probe how they run sessions: digital detox challenges, family media plans, notification audits, sleep hygiene workshops, and how they adapt content for Year 6 versus sixth form or staff.
Evidence to listen for
Describes how they teach a specific thing, not their philosophy of teaching
Adapts when the first explanation does not land
Checks understanding rather than assuming it
Differentiates for varying ability within one group
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Only philosophy, no method; one explanation and no plan B.
2
Needs Improvement
Delivers content but cannot adapt when learners are lost.
3
Satisfactory
Sound instruction; differentiation is limited.
4
Very Good
Multiple routes to the same concept, with real checks for understanding.
5
Excellent
Describes concrete session structures with activities, resources used, and how delivery shifted for age group, neurodivergence, or parent audiences.
03
Evaluation factor
Group management and safeguarding
25% weight
Assess handling of disclosures during sessions: sexting, grooming, self-harm content, cyberbullying. Look for DSL referral routes, DBS or equivalent clearance, and record-keeping practice.
Evidence to listen for
Has a concrete approach to a disruptive individual and a whole group losing focus
Knows the safeguarding or duty-of-care obligations for this age group and setting
Escalates a concern through the right channel
Sets boundaries without becoming punitive
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No behaviour strategy; unaware of safeguarding obligations.
2
Needs Improvement
Struggles with disruption; vague on duty of care.
3
Satisfactory
Manages a normal group; less confident with serious disruption.
4
Very Good
Confident group management with clear safeguarding awareness.
5
Excellent
Names a real disclosure handled correctly, escalated to the safeguarding lead promptly, and shows familiarity with KCSIE or local equivalents.
04
Evaluation factor
Progress and communication
15% weight
Test how they evidence change: pre and post surveys, device usage data, wellbeing measures like SWEMWBS, and how findings are reported to school leadership, HR, or parents.
Evidence to listen for
Measures whether learners actually improved, not just attended
Gives feedback that changes what someone does next
Communicates with parents, clients, or managers about difficult progress honestly
Records progress usefully
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No sense of whether anyone improved.
2
Needs Improvement
Tracks attendance rather than progress; avoids hard conversations.
3
Satisfactory
Monitors progress; feedback is general.
4
Very Good
Measures progress concretely and handles difficult conversations well.
5
Excellent
Presents measured shifts in habits or wellbeing scores, admits what did not move, and reports clearly to non-specialist decision-makers.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Digital Well-Being Specialist
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
Can you describe your experience running digital well-being programmes in an organisation?
02
Can you give an example of an initiative that worked?
03
What is your experience with structured breaks from digital tools?
04
How do you measure the effectiveness of these programmes?
05
How do you incorporate employee feedback into your work?
