Interview scorecard template

Epidemiologist interview scorecard

Evaluate Epidemiologist candidates across 4 weighted areas: method and rigour, real casework, interpretation and judgement, and reporting and testimony. Method and rigour leads at 35%, so check command of study design: cohort versus case-control selection, confounding control, sample size calculation, and which regression models they ran in R, SAS, or Stata. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
science investigationbiostatisticsepidemiologyoutbreak investigationsurveillance systems
TL;DR
For method and rigour, look for evidence the candidate names specific designs used, justifies confounder adjustment and bias controls, and shows fluency in survival or multivariable regression modelling. For real casework, look for evidence the candidate describes named outbreaks or cohorts with dates, case counts, and the specific analytic role they personally held, not team-level generalities. 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

Method and rigour

35% weight

Check command of study design: cohort versus case-control selection, confounding control, sample size calculation, and which regression models they ran in R, SAS, or Stata.

Evidence to listen for

  • Follows and can justify an established methodology
  • Understands contamination, bias, and chain of custody as they apply to the field
  • Knows the limits of their techniques and says so
  • Documents procedure so results are reproducible and defensible

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Careless method; unaware of contamination, bias, or procedural integrity.

2
Needs Improvement

Knows procedures but applies them inconsistently; gaps in documentation.

3
Satisfactory

Sound standard practice; less certain outside familiar techniques.

4
Very Good

Rigorous and well documented; understands the limits of each method.

5
Excellent

Names specific designs used, justifies confounder adjustment and bias controls, and shows fluency in survival or multivariable regression modelling.

02
Evaluation factor

Real casework

25% weight

Probe actual investigations: outbreak line lists, case definitions written, contact tracing volumes, NNDSS or REDCap surveillance data cleaned, and the population size covered.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings specific cases, sites, or projects rather than general description
  • States their own role and what they personally handled
  • Can describe an ambiguous or degraded case and how they proceeded
  • Knows what happened to the work afterwards

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No hands-on casework; experience is entirely academic.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their own contribution clearly.

3
Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

4
Very Good

Specific cases with clear personal scope and outcomes.

5
Excellent

Describes named outbreaks or cohorts with dates, case counts, and the specific analytic role they personally held, not team-level generalities.

03
Evaluation factor

Interpretation and judgement

25% weight

Test how they read imperfect data: distinguishing artefact from real signal in incidence trends, handling reporting delays, missingness, and when association does not justify causal claims.

Evidence to listen for

  • Separates what the evidence shows from what they infer
  • States confidence levels and what would change their conclusion
  • Comfortable saying the result is inconclusive
  • Handles pressure to reach a preferred conclusion without bending

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Overstates findings; no separation of evidence from inference.

2
Needs Improvement

Reaches conclusions the evidence does not support; uneasy with uncertainty.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable judgement; qualifies findings when prompted.

4
Very Good

Clearly separates evidence from inference and states confidence unprompted.

5
Excellent

Cites a case where they resisted or reversed a premature conclusion, explaining the data limitation and the alternative explanation checked.

04
Evaluation factor

Reporting and testimony

15% weight

Assess written and verbal output: peer-reviewed papers, MMWR-style field reports, briefings to health officers or clinicians, and handling press or public questions on risk.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes findings that a non-specialist can act on
  • Has presented or defended work to an external audience: court, client, review board, publication
  • Withstands challenge without overclaiming or retreating
  • Keeps records that hold up to scrutiny

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate findings; records would not withstand review.

2
Needs Improvement

Reporting is unclear or incomplete; avoids external scrutiny.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate reports; limited experience defending work externally.

4
Very Good

Clear reporting and real experience presenting to an external audience.

5
Excellent

Points to published or internal reports plus a briefing where technical uncertainty was conveyed clearly to non-epidemiologist decision-makers.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Epidemiologist

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

  1. 01

    Do you have experience creating study designs? Can you share examples?

  2. 02

    Which types of epidemiological research are you experienced in?

  3. 03

    Can you share your experience using biostatistics in analysing epidemiological data?

  4. 04

    What is your experience with disease surveillance systems?

  5. 05

    Can you describe research of yours that had a significant impact on population health?

See the complete Epidemiologist 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