Skip to content. Skip to navigation

Faculty Development

You are here: Home / Becoming An Effective Interviewer / Scoring Procedures

Scoring Procedures

Using a standardised scoring system, with descriptors for each score level, is a key component of a structured interview process (Patterson et al, 2013). So for example, with CT1 recruitment for Core Medical Training in the 2014 recruitment round, interviewers are given the following instructions to use when scoring applicants at each of the 3 Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) stations (described in the previous section).

Interviewers are instructed to assess each candidates’ performance against the level expected of a doctor in the latter stages UK foundation training so as to ascertain whether they are appointable or not.



Marks are awarded as follows:






Not considered appointable


Area for Concern

Performance below that expected at foundation level; possibly not appointable, subject to discussion



Performance at level expected during F2. Suitable for appointment



Performance at level expected on completion of F2. Suitable for appointment



Performance at level expected of CT1 or abo e. Suitable for appointment


If a candidate is awarded a score of at least 3 marks on all the stations, they are deemed to be appointable.

If a candidate did not achieve at least 3 marks on all the stations, the appointment will be discussed by the whole panel. If the panel feel that these concerns would not be significant enough to prevent progressing to CT1 level, the candidate will be deemed appointable. If instead, the panel concludes that the concerns are significant, they will be given a status of ‘not appointable’.

If a candidate receives any scores of 1 at any station they will be classed as not appointable, regardless of their scores in other stations.

Weighting of Scores

The different elements of the selection process do not need to be given the same weight. So for example with the 2014 CT1 Core Medical Recruitment, the different sections and application forms are given different weights when calculating the final overall assessment score. Specifically, the application form score is given a weight of 0.25 whilst the clinical scenario is given the weight of 1.6. (In other words, the clinical scenario score is given 6.4 times the weight of the application form score in the final overall score used to rank the candidates). This low weight given to the application form is in accordance with the repeated finding that applications have lower criterion related validity than structured interviews, (see Table C).

Feedback to Candidates

Figure A, outlined at the beginning of this e-resource, highlights that feedback to candidates is an essential component of recruitment and selection. Only in this way will unsuccessful candidates be able to understand where they fell down, and in turn know how to strengthen their application in future. The way in which feedback is handled will also contribute to the overall impression that the candidate gains of the employing organisation.

For example, for the 2014 CT1 recruitment for Core Medical Training, all applicants will be informed of the scores awarded to their application form and to the scores at each of the 3 interview stations.


Thinking Points

  • Reflecting on your experience as an interviewee and/or an interviewer – how was post-interview feedback handled?
  • Are there any specific ways in which feedback could be handled differently in order to help the unsuccessful candidate with future interviews, and/or to enhance the reputation of the employing organisation?



Print module to PDF

Save a PDF of this module, so you can print it and read it in your own time.

Email your comments

Let us know what you think about this module or give us your feedback.

Further information

More information about this module, further reading and a complete list of glossary terms.

Learning activities

Read about the recommended learning activities for this module.