---
title: 7 The extended assessment model
---

# 7 The extended assessment model

## 7.0 Introduction: what this extension answers

ObjectivEye assesses candidates with written questions. For each competency a position needs, the candidate answers one question, and the answer is scored against a behaviourally anchored rubric – a scale whose levels describe what a weaker and a stronger answer look like. An AI scores first and explains why; a human reviewer confirms or corrects. This works and is validated, but it has limits that the people using it have told us about. Reviewers find it slow, because they judge one answer at a time and never see the candidate as a whole. They miss the CV: a candidate's education and experience are not part of the assessment, although they would normally be the first thing a recruiter looks at. They want sharper scores. And our customers want to reuse what they learn about a candidate – for another vacancy, for an internal move, for a talent pool – which a set of answers to one vacancy's questions does not allow.

The extension answers this with one main addition and the structure around it. The main addition is biographical data: a candidate's education, experience, certificates and achievements become a structured, anonymised profile – a Skills Passport, filled quickly from the CV and corrected by the candidate – and that profile is scored against the requirements of a position, in the same way an answer is scored against a rubric. The structure around it is a requirements profile per position, so that there is something explicit to score against; a third evidence type, short work probes, for the cases where demonstrated work is the better evidence; and a scorecard that shows, per requirement, what the biographical profile, the questions and the probes each say – side by side, never added up – so that the reviewer decides per requirement with all evidence in view.

Three questions therefore define this part. How is biographical data scored against a requirements profile in a way that is valid, blind and explainable? Chapter 9 answers it: standardised records, a rule-based scoring guide over the skills taxonomy, and a measurable approach to the bias that biographical data brings. How do biographical scores sit alongside the behaviourally anchored rubric scales?

Chapters 7 and 8 answer it: the questions stay exactly as they are, they are asked only for requirements the profile does not already cover, and both are expressed in the same evidence model so that they can be read together. And how are the sources combined in the decision? Chapter 7.3 and the reviewer flow in chapter 11 answer it: they are not combined into a total – each source keeps its own score and its own certainty, the scorecard places them next to each other per requirement, and the reviewer records a judgement per requirement.

Everything that exists today is kept; the extension puts a requirements profile in front of it, biographical data and work probes beside it, and the scorecard and matching after it.

## 7.1 What is kept and what is added

The extension keeps every component of Part II and changes where it sits in the flow. Today a vacancy produces questions and rubrics, candidates answer, the pipeline scores and the reviewer confirms. In the extended model a vacancy first produces a confirmed requirements profile; per requirement the employer decides which evidence counts and under which scoring guide; the candidate's Skills Passport covers what it can, questions and work probes are asked only for the rest; and the scorecard shows the three sources side by side per requirement. The Generation Service, the Candidate Evaluation pipeline with its Rasch calibration, the Ontology Store and the Bias Monitoring Framework stay as they are; what is added are the requirements profile and rule sets, the passport records and biographical scorer, work-probe criteria, the scorecard and coverage matching, and certainty and explanations per level.

![Figure 11 – From the current methodology to the extended model: what is kept and what is added.](../media/image12.png)

*Figure 11 – From the current methodology to the extended model: what is kept and what is added.*

**At a glance**

|                    | **Today**                                       | **Extended – kept**                        | **Extended – added**                                                                                |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Unit of assessment | Competency per vacancy                          | Competency definitions, item quality model | Requirements profile per position; requirement linked to a taxonomy concept                         |
| Evidence           | Written answers                                 | Written answers, scored as today           | Skills Passport records (CV, confirmed); written work probes                                        |
| Scoring            | BARS via Candidate Evaluation; Rasch-calibrated | Same pipeline and calibration              | Biographical scorer (rational key over taxonomy paths); probe criteria scoring; certainty per level |
| Result             | Score per answer; AI–human comparison           | Explanation per criterion                  | Scorecard per requirement, three sources side by side, no total; coverage matching across positions |
| Quality            | Bias Monitoring, lifecycle framework            | Both, unchanged                            | Metrics per requirement and per scoring rule; functional contracts for the new scorers              |

*Table 3 – What the extension keeps and what it adds.*

## 7.2 Three formats, one methodological bridge

The three formats differ only in how evidence is elicited. From the CV and biographical data the candidate provides an upload; education, experience and achievements are extracted, normalised and confirmed by the candidate, become education, experience and demonstrated-task records linked to taxonomy concepts, and are scored with requirement-linked guides for background – relevance, level, recency – rather than for credentials or years. From the behaviourally anchored questions the candidate provides a written answer to one situation per requirement; it becomes an answer record with the situation, the reported behaviour and the outcome, and is scored with the requirement's anchored rubric, AI-assisted and reviewer-confirmed. From a work sample the candidate provides a short task output – a project plan, a case response, a written piece; it becomes a demonstrated-task record with the submission as source and is scored against task-specific criteria derived from the requirement.

Everything after elicitation is shared, and that is the bridge. Every format produces the same record type, an evidence claim: what the candidate claims or shows, for which requirement, from which source. Every claim is evaluated with a predefined, requirement-linked scoring guide whose levels and anchors are fixed before any candidate is seen. All scored claims form one evidence profile per candidate, which the scorecard reads per requirement; evidence that is missing stays visible as missing. Evaluation, storage and traceability are therefore identical across formats, and the ontology in section 11.2 holds the concepts they share.

![Figure 12 – Three formats, one methodological bridge (concept presentation, slide 12).](../media/image13.png)

*Figure 12 – Three formats, one methodological bridge (concept presentation, slide 12).*

## 7.3 The scorecard as translation layer

Candidate evidence and position-specific judgements remain distinct records. The same experience record, answer or work probe may support several assessments while its relevance and interpretation differ between positions. The scorecard connects what the evidence supports to what a position requires through the shared task, competency and knowledge concepts \[16\]. For a project-coordinator position the chain runs as follows: a position requirement – prepare project plans with clear milestones and dependencies – is met by candidate evidence consisting of an experience record, a reported project example and a submitted sample plan; from these follow evidence claims (the candidate reports having planned projects; the work probe shows planning performance); separate scoring guides evaluate the reported contribution and the quality of the plan; and the scorecard entry for the requirement cites both sources, explains their contribution and states the remaining uncertainty.

![Figure 13 – From position requirement to scorecard entry, and the three rules that keep the chain honest.](../media/image14.png)

*Figure 13 – From position requirement to scorecard entry, and the three rules that keep the chain honest.*

Three rules keep the chain honest. Nothing is silently merged: extracted associations, candidate statements, verification and assessment conclusions stay separate records with provenance – source, extraction activity, evaluator, version. Scores are not portable: a record can support several requirements or positions, but its evaluation may change with the target, the context or the guide, and a score under one rubric is not a score under another. And there is no universal total score: missing evidence is distinguishable from low performance, records from the same source are not double counted, and any aggregation needs an explicit, reviewed interpretation. Education or occupational experience may support a conclusion, but it does not establish demonstrated capability; that remains the role of the behavioural items and the work probes.

**The three instruments side by side**

|                          | **Behaviourally anchored questions**                                                                | **Biodata (Skills Passport)**                                                                          | **Written work probes**                                   |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| Evidence collected       | Written answer to one situation per requirement                                                     | Education, experience, certificate, skill and achievement records, extracted from the CV and confirmed | A short representative task output                        |
| Scoring guide            | Behaviourally anchored rubric per requirement                                                       | Rational key: link type × duration × recency × responsibility, levels 1–4; no path = no evidence       | Task-specific criteria sheet per requirement              |
| Scorer                   | Candidate Evaluation pipeline (existing)                                                            | Biographical scorer over taxonomy paths (new)                                                          | Candidate Evaluation pipeline with criteria sheet (reuse) |
| Research basis           | Structured-interview literature, written adaptation; ρ .42 for the interview, own validation needed | Rational keying ρ .22, empirical .38; Stokes & Searcy, Cucina et al., Speer et al.                     | Work samples ρ .33                                        |
| Group difference (B–W d) | .23 (interview)                                                                                     | .33                                                                                                    | .67 – closest fairness check                              |
| Candidate effort         | Medium – one item per requirement                                                                   | Low – CV exists, confirm only                                                                          | Higher – only where it adds information                   |
| Status                   | In production, validated                                                                            | Concept; PoC in Sprint 3                                                                               | Concept; task bank to define                              |

*Table 4 – The three instruments of the extended model. Figures from Sackett et al. (2022) \[3\].*