Interview scorecard template

DNA Forensics Experience Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate DNA Forensics Experience Designer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so ask for exhibits, lab tours, or interactive builds they designed around DNA evidence: STR profiling walkthroughs, CODIS match demos, mock crime scene stations, with visitor. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationexhibit designforensic geneticsinteractive storytellingvisitor experience
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows named installations or digital experiences on DNA identification, their role on each, and measured dwell time, completion, or comprehension gains. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains specific design choices, such as simplifying allele peaks or framing probability, and names the forensic scientist who signed off. 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

Portfolio

35% weight

Ask for exhibits, lab tours, or interactive builds they designed around DNA evidence: STR profiling walkthroughs, CODIS match demos, mock crime scene stations, with visitor or learner numbers.

Evidence to listen for

  • Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
  • States what they made versus what the team or a template made
  • Shows range rather than one repeated style
  • Can walk through a piece from brief to final

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.

2
Needs Improvement

Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.

3
Satisfactory

Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.

4
Very Good

Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Shows named installations or digital experiences on DNA identification, their role on each, and measured dwell time, completion, or comprehension gains.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe how they translate electropherograms, likelihood ratios, and chain of custody into tactile or screen-based interaction without distorting the science; ask who validated accuracy.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
  • Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
  • Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
  • Names the tools they are genuinely fast in

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.

3
Satisfactory

Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.

5
Excellent

Explains specific design choices, such as simplifying allele peaks or framing probability, and names the forensic scientist who signed off.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Look for evidence of prototype testing with real visitors, students, or jurors: paper mockups, wayfinding fixes, revisions after confusion over match probability wording.

Evidence to listen for

  • Takes critique without treating it as an attack
  • Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
  • Iterates fast rather than defending version one
  • Delivers files correctly and on time

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Defensive about critique; will not revise.

2
Needs Improvement

Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.

3
Satisfactory

Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.

4
Very Good

Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.

5
Excellent

Cites concrete before and after changes driven by observed testing, including scripts or panels rewritten when audiences misread DNA results.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Judge how they work within constraints set by museums, labs, or police education units: budget, accessibility standards, ethics around real case material and victim privacy.

Evidence to listen for

  • Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
  • Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
  • Flags an impossible brief early
  • Hands over files and assets others can actually use

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.

2
Needs Improvement

Starts designing before understanding the goal.

3
Satisfactory

Asks the right questions when prompted.

4
Very Good

Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.

5
Excellent

Handles curator and legal constraints openly, flags sensitive case content early, and delivers to fixed install dates and fabrication budgets.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a DNA Forensics Experience Designer

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Tell us about your experience designing forensic DNA workflows or systems.

  2. 02

    Can you describe a challenging project you have worked on in forensic DNA?

  3. 03

    Can you explain your experience with laboratory information management systems?

  4. 04

    What steps do you take to ensure chain of custody?

  5. 05

    What protocols do you follow for sample collection and preservation?

See the complete DNA Forensics Experience Designer question set
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