Interview scorecard template

User Experience (UX) Researcher interview scorecard

Evaluate User Experience (UX) Researcher 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 how they choose between generative interviews, diary studies, unmoderated tests and surveys; ask about sample sizing, screener design, task construction, and avoiding. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
science investigationmixed methodsresearch opsusability testingux research
TL;DR
For method and rigour, look for evidence the candidate matches method to decision stage, defends sample sizes, writes non-leading tasks, and names bias risks in their own past screeners. For real casework, look for evidence the candidate describes specific studies end to end with participant numbers, timelines, tooling, and the shipped design change each one triggered. 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 how they choose between generative interviews, diary studies, unmoderated tests and surveys; ask about sample sizing, screener design, task construction, and avoiding leading questions.

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

Matches method to decision stage, defends sample sizes, writes non-leading tasks, and names bias risks in their own past screeners.

02
Evaluation factor

Real casework

25% weight

Probe actual studies run: participant counts, recruitment via UserTesting or Respondent, tools like Dovetail, Maze or Lookback, and which product decisions changed.

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 specific studies end to end with participant numbers, timelines, tooling, and the shipped design change each one triggered.

03
Evaluation factor

Interpretation and judgement

25% weight

Assess synthesis: how they move from transcripts to themes, handle contradictory findings, weigh SUS or task success rates against qualitative signal, and flag low-confidence conclusions.

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

Separates observation from inference, quantifies confidence, and cites a case where evidence contradicted their own or a stakeholder's hypothesis.

04
Evaluation factor

Reporting and testimony

15% weight

Look for readout craft: highlight reels, prioritised recommendations, research repositories, and evidence they held ground with product managers or designers who disliked findings.

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

Delivers concise decision-focused readouts, maintains a searchable repository, and gives an example of persuading a resistant stakeholder with clips and data.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a User Experience (UX) Researcher

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

  1. 01

    What UX research methodologies are you familiar with, and how do you choose between them?

  2. 02

    Describe a time you had to adjust your research method partway through a project.

  3. 03

    What does a typical user interview process look like for you?

  4. 04

    Can you give an example of a research project you led, and what came of it?

  5. 05

    Have you conducted remote user testing? Can you describe how you ran it?

See the complete User Experience (UX) Researcher 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