Interview scorecard template

Research Assistant interview scorecard

Evaluate Research Assistant candidates across 4 weighted areas: technique and experimental design, results that went somewhere, troubleshooting and reproducibility, and documentation and collaboration. Technique and experimental design leads at 35%, so check which protocols they ran unsupervised: PCR, ELISA, cell culture passaging, survey instrument design, or SPSS/R coding, and who wrote. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
laboratory applied sciencedata collectionirb protocolsliterature reviewresearch assistant
TL;DR
For technique and experimental design, look for evidence the candidate names specific assays or study designs run independently, explains controls, sample sizes and why the design answered the PI's question. For results that went somewhere, look for evidence the candidate points to authored or acknowledged outputs, describes the dataset they generated and how findings changed the lab's next experiment. 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

Technique and experimental design

35% weight

Check which protocols they ran unsupervised: PCR, ELISA, cell culture passaging, survey instrument design, or SPSS/R coding, and who wrote the protocol they followed.

Evidence to listen for

  • Runs the assays and instruments themselves rather than describing what a team does
  • Designs experiments with controls, replicates, and a stated hypothesis
  • Knows what each technique can and cannot resolve
  • Understands the science, not only the protocol

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Protocol follower with no experimental design; cannot justify controls.

2
Needs Improvement

Runs standard assays; designs experiments poorly or not at all.

3
Satisfactory

Competent at the bench with sound routine design.

4
Very Good

Designs rigorous experiments and understands the limits of each technique.

5
Excellent

Names specific assays or study designs run independently, explains controls, sample sizes and why the design answered the PI's question.

02
Evaluation factor

Results that went somewhere

25% weight

Probe what their data fed into: a named publication, poster, conference abstract, grant renewal, or thesis chapter, and their stated contribution to each.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names projects where their results changed a decision, a process, or a product
  • States their own contribution rather than the group's
  • Has taken something from bench to a larger scale, a filing, or a publication
  • Knows what happened to the work after they handed it over

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No results that went anywhere; work is entirely exploratory.

2
Needs Improvement

Contributed to projects but cannot say what their data changed.

3
Satisfactory

Real contributions; outcomes described loosely.

4
Very Good

Names results that changed a decision, with clear personal scope.

5
Excellent

Points to authored or acknowledged outputs, describes the dataset they generated and how findings changed the lab's next experiment.

03
Evaluation factor

Troubleshooting and reproducibility

25% weight

Test how they handle failed runs: contaminated cultures, drifting standard curves, missing participant data, or results that would not replicate across batches.

Evidence to listen for

  • Treats a failed run as information rather than bad luck
  • Isolates reagent, instrument, operator, and biological causes systematically
  • Knows why a result failed to reproduce and can say when their own data was wrong
  • Keeps records good enough to diagnose from months later

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Repeats failed runs unchanged; no diagnostic thinking.

2
Needs Improvement

Troubleshoots by substitution; cannot explain a reproducibility failure.

3
Satisfactory

Solid troubleshooting on familiar assays.

4
Very Good

Systematic isolation of causes, and honest about their own irreproducible results.

5
Excellent

Walks through isolating one variable at a time, checking reagent lots and instrument calibration, and reruns before reporting anything.

04
Evaluation factor

Documentation and collaboration

15% weight

Look for lab notebook discipline, ELN use, IRB or IACUC submissions, chain of custody, and how they hand work to the next student or postdoc.

Evidence to listen for

  • Keeps records to the standard the setting requires, whether that is GLP, GMP, or a defensible notebook
  • Writes up so someone else can repeat the work
  • Works with process, quality, or clinical colleagues rather than in a bench silo
  • Explains a result to a non-specialist without overclaiming

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Records would not survive audit; work is not repeatable from them.

2
Needs Improvement

Documentation is thin; write-ups need heavy editing.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate records and write-ups; collaboration is limited.

4
Very Good

Audit-standard records and clear communication across functions.

5
Excellent

Keeps dated, auditable records others reproduced from; has drafted ethics amendments and trained incoming students on procedures.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Research Assistant

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

  1. 01

    Can you describe a research project you have worked on?

  2. 02

    Do you have experience with qualitative and quantitative research methods?

  3. 03

    Do you have experience assisting with the design of research studies?

  4. 04

    Are you familiar with data collection and analysis?

  5. 05

    Do you have experience conducting literature reviews?

See the complete Research Assistant 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