design visual communicationdesign psychologyemotion measurementkansei engineeringux research
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 to walk through two projects where emotional response drove design decisions: onboarding flows, product packaging, care environments. Look for before and after affect data, not mood boards alone.
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 projects linking a design change to measured shifts in self-reported affect, trust ratings, or completion and retention numbers.
02
Evaluation factor
Craft and rationale
25% weight
Probe the methods behind the work: PANAS or SAM scales, facial coding, galvanic skin response, Kansei engineering matrices, and how Norman's visceral, behavioural and reflective levels shaped choices.
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
Names specific instruments and scales, explains why each suited the question, and flags where self-report and biometrics disagreed.
03
Evaluation factor
Feedback and iteration
25% weight
Test how they respond when a stakeholder disputes findings or when pilot emotion data contradicts the creative direction. Ask about a design they abandoned after user testing.
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
Describes revising or dropping a favoured concept on evidence, and shows iteration cycles with sample sizes and what changed each round.
04
Evaluation factor
Working with the brief
15% weight
Check how they translate a vague brief such as "make it feel calmer" into testable emotional constructs, hypotheses, and deliverables designers and engineers can build against.
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
Converts fuzzy emotional goals into defined constructs and measurable criteria, then hands designers concrete, prioritised guidance rather than academic summaries.
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.
