Interview scorecard template

Eco-psychologist interview scorecard

Evaluate Eco-psychologist candidates across 4 weighted areas: clinical competence, patient safety and protocol, patient communication, and working in a clinical team. Clinical competence leads at 35%, so check their therapeutic training and registration (BACP, HCPC, BPS), plus named modalities they apply outdoors: ACT, mindfulness-based approaches, nature-based CBT, grief work on climate distress. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring

healthcare clinicalbacp accreditationclimate anxietyecotherapynature based therapy

TL;DR

For clinical competence, look for evidence the candidate holds current registration, names specific modalities adapted for outdoor delivery, and cites supervised caseload hours with climate anxiety or eco-grief clients. For patient safety and protocol, look for evidence the candidate describes written site risk assessments, clear escalation and safeguarding pathways, and how they maintain confidentiality and crisis response away from a consulting room. 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.

Evaluation factor

Clinical competence

35% weight

Check their therapeutic training and registration (BACP, HCPC, BPS), plus named modalities they apply outdoors: ACT, mindfulness-based approaches, nature-based CBT, grief work on climate distress.

Evidence to listen for

Command of the procedures, anatomy, and equipment the role requires
Holds current registration or certification
Knows normal from abnormal and what to do about each
Recognises when a case is outside their scope

Five-point scoring guide

Poor

Unsafe knowledge gaps; registration missing or lapsed.

Needs Improvement

Knowledge gaps that would affect patient care.

Satisfactory

Competent for standard cases; needs support on complex ones.

Very Good

Strong clinical knowledge; safe and reliable across the usual range.

Excellent

Holds current registration, names specific modalities adapted for outdoor delivery, and cites supervised caseload hours with climate anxiety or eco-grief clients.

Evaluation factor

Patient safety and protocol

30% weight

Probe risk assessment for off-site sessions: lone working policy, weather and terrain hazards, confidentiality in public green space, safeguarding referral routes, suicide risk screening outdoors.

Evidence to listen for

Follows identification, infection control, and documentation protocol without prompting
Can describe an error or near miss and what they did
Escalates deterioration early
Treats protocol as protection rather than bureaucracy

Five-point scoring guide

Poor

Casual about protocol; would not report an error.

Needs Improvement

Inconsistent protocol adherence; slow to escalate.

Satisfactory

Follows protocol reliably; documentation sometimes thin.

Very Good

Protocol is instinctive; escalates early and reports honestly.

Excellent

Describes written site risk assessments, clear escalation and safeguarding pathways, and how they maintain confidentiality and crisis response away from a consulting room.

Evaluation factor

Patient communication

20% weight

Assess how they hold sessions with distressed clients while walking or sitting in a woodland or garden setting, including boundary setting and contracting for outdoor work.

Evidence to listen for

Explains a procedure to an anxious or confused patient
Handles distress, pain, or refusal without losing control of the interaction
Respects privacy and dignity in practice, not just in principle
Works with families and carers

Five-point scoring guide

Poor

Dismissive of patients; no bedside awareness.

Needs Improvement

Task-focused; struggles with distressed patients.

Satisfactory

Adequate rapport; less confident in difficult interactions.

Very Good

Calm, clear, and respectful with anxious or difficult patients.

Excellent

Explains outdoor contracting explicitly, adapts pace to client state, and distinguishes validating ecological grief from pathologising a rational response.

Evaluation factor

Working in a clinical team

15% weight

Look for work alongside GPs, social prescribing link workers, conservation trusts, school pastoral teams, and clinical supervisors; ask about referral volumes and joint programme delivery.

Evidence to listen for

Hands over cleanly and completely
Challenges a colleague when patient safety requires it
Takes direction from clinicians without deferring blindly
Handles shift work and pressure without becoming difficult to work with

Five-point scoring guide

Poor

Poor handover; cannot work in a clinical team.

Needs Improvement

Handover gaps; avoids raising concerns about colleagues.

Satisfactory

Reliable team member; handover adequate.

Very Good

Clean handovers and willing to speak up on safety.

Excellent

Names partner organisations and referral routes, brings cases to supervision consistently, and co-designed green prescribing groups with named health or land-management colleagues.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Eco-psychologist

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

01
What clinical training and registration do you hold?
02
What types of clients do you typically work with?
03
Can you describe cases where this approach was particularly effective?
04
How do you integrate ecological concepts into your therapeutic practice?
05
What techniques do you use to help clients connect with the natural world?

See the complete Eco-psychologist 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