Interview scorecard template

Toy Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate Toy Designer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so review shipped toy lines, not concepts: ask which SKUs reached retail, their age grade, price point, and whether they own sculpts, decos, packaging, or full line architecture. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationastm f963injection mouldingplay patterntoy design
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate names specific SKUs on shelf with age grading, target retail price, and their exact contribution from concept sketch through production sample. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains a design decision in terms of play value and mould constraints together, citing draft, undercuts, or action feature mechanics. 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

Portfolio

35% weight

Review shipped toy lines, not concepts: ask which SKUs reached retail, their age grade, price point, and whether they own sculpts, decos, packaging, or full line architecture.

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

Names specific SKUs on shelf with age grading, target retail price, and their exact contribution from concept sketch through production sample.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Test sketching, ZBrush or SolidWorks skill plus tooling literacy: draft angles, parting lines, blow versus injection moulding, and how a play pattern drives the form.

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

Explains a design decision in terms of play value and mould constraints together, citing draft, undercuts, or action feature mechanics.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Probe how they handled EP, CFM and PP sample rounds, factory DFM pushback, cost engineering to hit COGs, and licensor style guide approval comments.

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 reworking a sculpt or deco across several sample rounds to satisfy factory, licensor, and cost targets without losing the play idea.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Ask how they read a marketing brief and safety envelope: ASTM F963 or EN71 small parts, choke tube checks, tension and torque testing, and Toy Fair deadlines.

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

Treats safety standards and cost ceilings as design inputs from day one, and cites a brief they interpreted into a testable, sellable concept.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Toy Designer

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

  1. 01

    Have you designed a toy that went from concept through to production?

  2. 02

    What kinds of toys have you designed before?

  3. 03

    Can you share examples from your toy design portfolio?

  4. 04

    How do you consider child safety when designing a toy?

  5. 05

    Do you have experience designing for a specific age group?

See the complete Toy Designer 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