Scoring Methodology
InterviewRigor scores a structured behavioral interview the way a trained assessor would — using behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) and weighted, transparent criteria. Each criterion is scored 1–10; the criteria are split into a Content score (what you said) and a Delivery score (how you said it), and your overall performance is summarized as a readiness band. All composites are computed in code from the criterion scores, so the numbers always reconcile. This page documents exactly how each piece works.
View an example report →Not every interview question asks for a STAR story, so each question is first classified by what it actually asks for, and then scored on a rubric built for that type. STAR is used only where a specific example is requested.
| Type | What it asks for | Uses STAR? |
|---|---|---|
| Behavioral | A specific past example or story — "tell me about a time…", "describe a situation…", or "…provide a specific example." Hybrids that ask for a view and an example count here. | Yes |
| Motivation | Why you want the role/company, or what about its mission or values appeals to you (e.g. "what aspects of the Credo inspired you?"). | No |
| Opinion | Your approach, philosophy, or view — "how do you ensure…", "what does integrity mean to you?" — with no example required. | No |
| Background | "Tell me about yourself" / walk through your experience. | No |
A Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale ties every point on a scale to a concrete, observable description of a response at that level — instead of vague adjectives. This makes scoring consistent and the feedback specific. Two parts of the evaluation use BARS: the four STAR components and Answering the Question, each on a 1–5 scale.
Each component is rated 1–5 against the anchors below. The STAR criterion (1–10) = the average of the four × 2, reduced by 1–2 points if the Result is missing or non-specific (the result is the most important element).
| 5 | Specific context (when/where/stakes) in 1–2 sentences |
| 4 | Clear but a little vague or long |
| 3 | Present but vague or overlong |
| 2 | Barely sketched |
| 1 | Missing or hypothetical |
| 5 | Crisply states the candidate's OWN responsibility and why it mattered |
| 4 | Clear ownership, light on stakes |
| 3 | Implied or blended with the situation, ownership fuzzy |
| 2 | Barely identifiable |
| 1 | No defined task |
| 5 | Several concrete, sequenced steps they personally took, with rationale, consistent "I" |
| 4 | Specific actions, mostly first-person, limited rationale |
| 3 | General actions, limited detail, mixed I/we |
| 2 | Vague or mostly team-attributed |
| 1 | "Dealt with it" / no personal actions |
| 5 | Specific, quantified outcome tied to the task, plus learning/impact |
| 4 | Clear outcome, partly measurable |
| 3 | Stated but generic or unquantified |
| 2 | Vague gesture at an outcome |
| 1 | No result, or unrelated to the task |
How directly and completely the answer responds to the exact question asked. This BARS drives the Relevance criterion (and is the dominant factor in it).
| 5 | Directly and fully answers the exact question; every part of a multi-part question addressed; no drift |
| 4 | Answers well and stays on point; one sub-part light or a brief tangent |
| 3 | Partially answers — misses part of the question, answers a near-miss version, or drifts then recovers |
| 2 | Largely non-responsive — a loosely related story, or answers a different question |
| 1 | Does not answer — off-topic, evasive, or a generic "I always…" |
Before starting, you pick a level: Individual Contributor, Manager, or Senior Leader. The competencies and questions stay the same — what changes is the anchor: the same competency requires greater scope, complexity, and impact to earn a high score at higher levels. This mirrors how professional leveled competency frameworks work.
Example — what a strong (5) Drive for Results answer looks like at each level:
| Level | A "5" requires… |
|---|---|
| IC | Excellent personal execution — an owned goal, concrete personal actions, a measurable result |
| Manager | Delivering through a team — balancing priorities, removing blockers, developing people; team-scope impact |
| Senior Leader | Setting direction and delivering through other leaders — organizational scope, ambiguity, senior-stakeholder alignment |
An IC is never penalized for lacking organizational scope — the anchors calibrate down as well as up. Manager and Senior Leader levels also unlock three senior competencies in the default bank: Strategic Thinking, Leading Change & Transformation, and Building Organizational Capability. Each question's competency is tagged in your report.
Built from the four STAR-component BARS above. Rewards a clear situation and task, concrete first-person actions, and — most heavily — a specific, measurable result.
Driven by the Answering the Question BARS. On behavioral questions it blends two sub-scores: how well you answered the question (80%) and how well the example fits the specific role per the job description (20%).
Both sub-scores are 1–5; the composite is computed in code (not by the model) so the weighting is exact.
Three signals, in priority order:
Counts verbal disfluencies (um, uh, er, hmm, and tic-words like "you know") and phrase fillers ("basically", "at the end of the day", "to be honest"). The report shows an explicit um/uh count and a per-token breakdown.
Note: when answering by voice, browsers often strip "um/uh" from the transcript automatically, so the count is most accurate for typed answers.
Rewards claiming personal ownership with "I" and flags "we / our team" phrasing that dilutes individual credit.
Does the answer demonstrate specific knowledge of the role, company, industry, culture, or mission — naming real values or details — rather than generic "I want to grow" statements?
Quality of reasoning on a philosophy or approach question — is the view specific, well-reasoned, and insightful, with clear principles, or vague and generic?
Non-behavioral questions don't require a STAR story, but answers grounded in a concrete, real experience are stronger. This criterion gives partial credit for genuine examples — without penalizing heavily when none is given.
The criteria measure two different things, so we report them separately rather than blending them into one number — it's both more accurate and more useful, because it tells you what to work on.
| Score | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Content | STAR structure, relevance, substance, real examples, company knowledge — what you said and how strongly it answers the question. |
| Delivery | Conciseness, filler words, and personal ownership (I vs. We) — how you said it. |
Each question shows its own Content and Delivery scores; your report rolls them up into two headline scores. Both are whole numbers (1–10) — we don't imply false precision with decimals.
Your overall performance is summarized as a readiness band — a developmental signal, not a prediction of whether you'd be hired. (We deliberately avoid a fabricated "offer likelihood" percentage, which would imply a predictive accuracy we haven't validated.)
| Band | Reading |
|---|---|
| Interview-Ready | Strong, well-evidenced answers across the board |
| On Track | Solid foundation — a few areas to sharpen |
| Developing | Real material to build on; focus on the flagged gaps |
| Needs Work | Rebuild answers around specific examples and clear results |
The band is derived from your scores and is meant to guide practice, not to judge you.