education coachingmbctmbsrmeditation instructiontrauma sensitive practice
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 which curriculum they are trained to deliver: MBSR, MBCT, .b Foundations, and ask about teacher training hours, supervision, retreat days and their own daily sitting practice.
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
Names a specific eight-week curriculum, teacher training lineage, ongoing supervisor, silent retreat days logged and a consistent personal practice.
02
Evaluation factor
How they actually teach
30% weight
Test how they lead a body scan or three-step breathing space live: pacing, invitational language, and how they run inquiry dialogue after a practice rather than lecturing.
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
Guides practice with unhurried invitational phrasing and draws learning from participants' direct experience instead of explaining mindfulness theory at them.
03
Evaluation factor
Group management and safeguarding
25% weight
Probe handling of a participant who dissociates or cries mid-practice, contraindications for trauma or active psychosis, referral routes, and their ethics or safeguarding code.
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
Describes trauma-sensitive adaptations, clear limits of a coaching role, named referral pathway to clinicians and a specific safeguarding incident handled well.
04
Evaluation factor
Progress and communication
15% weight
Assess how they evidence change: FFMQ or PSS scores, home practice logs, week-by-week attendance retention, and how they report outcomes to HR sponsors or private clients.
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
Cites measured shifts in validated scales plus retention and home practice figures, and reports them to sponsors without overclaiming clinical benefit.
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.
