Interview scorecard template

Neurodiversity Inclusion Consultant interview scorecard

Evaluate Neurodiversity Inclusion Consultant candidates across 4 weighted areas: outcomes that landed, stakeholder facilitation, regulatory and policy command, and evidence and reporting. Outcomes that landed leads at 30%, so ask what changed after their engagements: adjusted async meeting norms, sensory-friendly hiring loops, retention of autistic or ADHD staff, documented accommodation approval rates. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
public sector communitydei consultingneurodiversityremote work inclusionworkplace accommodations
TL;DR
For outcomes that landed, look for evidence the candidate names specific clients, the adjustments implemented (captioning defaults, written agendas, flexible core hours) and follow-up data showing retention or engagement shifts. For stakeholder facilitation, look for evidence the candidate describes running listening sessions and manager clinics over Zoom or Slack, converting sceptical leaders into sponsors without disclosing individual diagnoses. 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

Outcomes that landed

30% weight

Ask what changed after their engagements: adjusted async meeting norms, sensory-friendly hiring loops, retention of autistic or ADHD staff, documented accommodation approval rates at named employers.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names programmes or initiatives that were adopted, funded, or delivered
  • States their own role rather than the department's
  • Gives measured reach or impact
  • Distinguishes work that landed from work that stalled, and explains why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No delivered work; describes intent and process only.

2
Needs Improvement

Involved in initiatives but cannot say what resulted or what they owned.

3
Satisfactory

Real delivery with adequate ownership; impact described loosely.

4
Very Good

Named outcomes with clear personal scope and some measures.

5
Excellent

Names specific clients, the adjustments implemented (captioning defaults, written agendas, flexible core hours) and follow-up data showing retention or engagement shifts.

02
Evaluation factor

Stakeholder facilitation

25% weight

Probe how they hold a room containing HR, legal, engineering managers and an employee resource group, plus how they handle a manager who resists asynchronous accommodations.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings a real contested case, not a philosophy of engagement
  • Names the competing interests and the resolution method
  • Uses concrete engagement formats and can point to input that changed a decision
  • Treats every group as legitimate

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or contempt for one group.

2
Needs Improvement

Recalls conflict but no method; engagement is a box to check.

3
Satisfactory

Real case and workable approach; resolution thin on specifics.

4
Very Good

Names the tension and method; cites engagement that shaped the outcome.

5
Excellent

Describes running listening sessions and manager clinics over Zoom or Slack, converting sceptical leaders into sponsors without disclosing individual diagnoses.

03
Evaluation factor

Regulatory and policy command

25% weight

Test command of ADA Title I, the Equality Act 2010, reasonable adjustment processes, Access to Work or JAN resources, and confidentiality limits on medical information.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names the statutes, funding rules, and processes they have worked under
  • Explains how those requirements sequenced their work
  • Owns the compliance thinking rather than deferring it entirely
  • Knows where the discretion sits

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a framework.

2
Needs Improvement

Generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named rules.

3
Satisfactory

Knows the main frameworks; sequencing described loosely.

4
Very Good

Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a timeline.

5
Excellent

Cites the interactive process precisely, distinguishes adjustment from undue hardship, and knows cross-border rules for distributed teams and contractors.

04
Evaluation factor

Evidence and reporting

20% weight

Look for how they measure impact: pre and post pulse surveys, accommodation request cycle time, exit interview themes, and how findings reach an executive sponsor.

Evidence to listen for

  • Uses data to choose between options, not to justify a decision already made
  • Names the sources and methods behind their numbers
  • Reports to funders, councils, or the public in terms those audiences can use
  • Tracks whether the intervention worked

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No use of evidence; decisions are assertion.

2
Needs Improvement

Cites data but cannot explain its source or limits.

3
Satisfactory

Uses evidence competently; evaluation after the fact is thin.

4
Very Good

Evidence drives choices and is reported clearly to lay audiences.

5
Excellent

Shows a real report or dashboard with baseline metrics, anonymised qualitative themes, and clear recommendations tied to cost and timeline.

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