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 their training lineage: MBSR or MBCT teacher pathway, silent retreat days logged, supervision hours, BAMBA or IMTA alignment, and which practices (body scan, RAIN, loving-kindness) they lead unscripted.
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 completed teacher training pathway, ongoing supervisor, personal daily practice, and retreat history with dates and hosting organisations.
02
Evaluation factor
How they actually teach
30% weight
Probe how they run a 60-minute virtual session: pacing of silence over Zoom, inquiry after practice, handling cameras off, and adapting scripts for beginners versus returning cohorts.
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
Describes a concrete session arc, uses open inquiry rather than instruction, and adjusts pacing when participants disengage or go quiet.
03
Evaluation factor
Group management and safeguarding
25% weight
Test trauma-sensitive practice: what they do when a participant dissociates or cries on camera, referral boundaries, choice-based language, and any safeguarding or duty-of-care policy they worked under.
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
Recounts a real distress episode online, applies grounding and choice-based options, and states clearly where their scope ends and referral begins.
04
Evaluation factor
Progress and communication
15% weight
Assess how they evidence change: pre and post measures such as PSS or WEMWBS, attendance retention across an eight-week course, and how they report to HR sponsors or clinical referrers.
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 retention and outcome numbers from named cohorts, plus a reporting rhythm with sponsors that avoids disclosing individual participant material.
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.
