Do we still need interviews if we assess skills?

Yes. Assessment tells you whether someone can do the work; the interview covers motivation, collaboration, and context. It just gets shorter and more specific, because you are discussing work you have already read.

Can we replace the technical interview?

Usually yes, and candidates strongly prefer it. Replace whiteboard exercises with a work sample and use interview time for reasoning about the submitted work.

How do we avoid interviewers overriding assessment scores?

Require a written reason for any override, recorded against the evidence. The point is not to prevent disagreement but to make it explicit and reviewable later.

Compare · For employers

Structured Interviews vs Skills Assessments

Structured interviews ask every candidate the same questions and score answers against a rubric, which controls interviewer bias but still measures how well someone narrates past work. Skills assessments measure the work directly. They are complements: assess first to rank on ability, interview second to explore reasoning.

Updated 30 July 2026

What does a structured interview actually measure?

Structured interviews are a genuine improvement on unstructured ones — same questions, same rubric, less interviewer drift. That is real and worth having.

But the measurement is still self-report at one remove. "Tell me about a time you handled conflicting priorities" scores the candidate's ability to recall, select, and narrate an anecdote. Those skills correlate with confidence and interview practice more than with the decision-making you are trying to hire.

Where does each method beat the other?

Assessment wins on: actual capability, candidates who present poorly, candidates whose titles do not match, and defensibility — you can show the work.

Interview wins on: motivation and context fit, how someone responds to challenge in real time, collaboration signals, and the candidate's own questions, which are often the most informative part of the conversation.

Neither measures: whether they will still be engaged in eighteen months. Nothing in a hiring process measures that well.

What is the right order?

Assess first, interview second — for a specific reason. Interviewing first anchors you: once you have met someone and liked them, their assessment gets read charitably and everyone else's gets read strictly. Ranking on blind evidence before you meet anyone removes that anchor.

It also improves the interview itself. Instead of asking someone to describe how they prioritise, you can point at the cut they made in the challenge and ask why. That conversation is far more informative and much harder to rehearse.

Next step

Try it on one role you’ve struggled to fill.

Define it as four to six skills with required levels, send one challenge link, and count how many of your top ten the old screen would have rejected.

Build a skill spec

Questions people ask

Do we still need interviews if we assess skills?: Yes. Assessment tells you whether someone can do the work; the interview covers motivation, collaboration, and context. It just gets shorter and more specific, because you are discussing work you have already read.
Can we replace the technical interview?: Usually yes, and candidates strongly prefer it. Replace whiteboard exercises with a work sample and use interview time for reasoning about the submitted work.
How do we avoid interviewers overriding assessment scores?: Require a written reason for any override, recorded against the evidence. The point is not to prevent disagreement but to make it explicit and reviewable later.