Candidate Scoring Report
Track candidate ratings and evaluation patterns.
Goal
Review how candidates are scored. Ensure fair, consistent evaluations across positions and departments.
How to Access
Step 1: Go to Reports > Candidate Scoring
Step 2: Set your date range
Step 3: (Optional) Filter by departments or jobs
Step 4: Click Apply Filters
Summary Cards
Four cards show key metrics at the top.
| Card | Description |
|---|---|
| Total Candidates Scored | Number of candidates with ratings |
| Overall Average Rating | Average score out of 5 |
| Consistency Score | How consistent evaluations are (percentage) |
| Top Rated Position | Position with highest average rating |
Charts
Average Ratings by Position
Bar chart showing ratings for each job title.
| Element | Description |
|---|---|
| X-axis | Job title |
| Y-axis | Average rating (1-5) |
| Bar height | Average score |
Overall Rating Distribution
Pie chart showing how ratings are distributed.
| Slice | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 Stars | Excellent candidates |
| 4 Stars | Good candidates |
| 3 Stars | Average candidates |
| 2 Stars | Below average |
| 1 Star | Poor fit |
Scoring Consistency by Department
Bar chart showing evaluation consistency.
| Element | Description |
|---|---|
| X-axis | Department name |
| Y-axis | Consistency percentage |
| Bar height | Consistency score |
Candidates Scored by Position
Bar chart showing evaluation volume.
| Element | Description |
|---|---|
| X-axis | Job title |
| Y-axis | Number of candidates |
| Bar height | Candidates scored |
Performance Indicators
Three cards show scoring insights.
Rating Quality Card
| Metric | Badge | Description |
|---|---|---|
| High Ratings (4-5) | Green | Percentage of strong candidates |
| Medium Ratings (3) | Yellow | Percentage of average candidates |
| Low Ratings (1-2) | Red | Percentage of poor-fit candidates |
Scoring Insights Card
| Metric | Description |
|---|---|
| Most Consistent Dept. | Department with most consistent scores |
| Needs Improvement | Department with inconsistent scoring |
| Scoring Bias Risk | Low, Medium, or High |
Recommendations Card
System-generated tips:
- "Low scoring consistency detected. Consider standardizing evaluation criteria and training."
- "High percentage of low ratings. Review candidate sourcing and qualification processes."
- "High bias risk detected. Implement structured interview processes and multiple evaluators."
- "Candidate scoring patterns are healthy. Continue monitoring for consistency and bias."
Detailed Table
Table showing scoring data by position.
| Column | Description |
|---|---|
| Job Title | Position name |
| Department | Department name |
| Avg. Rating | Average score with star display |
| Total Candidates | Number scored |
| Consistency | Scoring consistency percentage |
| Rating Distribution | Inline badge per rating level showing star symbol and count (e.g., 5★: 10, 4★: 15, 3★: 8) |
Consistency Colors
| Consistency | Badge Color |
|---|---|
| 80% or higher | Green |
| 60% to 79% | Yellow |
| Under 60% | Red |
Bias Risk Levels
| Level | Consistency Score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Low | 80% or higher | Evaluations are consistent |
| Medium | 60% to 79% | Some variation in scoring |
| High | Under 60% | Significant inconsistency |
Tips
- Low consistency? Train evaluators on scoring criteria
- All high ratings? May indicate grade inflation
- All low ratings? May indicate poor candidate sourcing
- Compare departments to find best practices
Common Questions
Q: What is a good consistency score? A: 80% or higher is excellent. Below 60% needs attention.
Q: Why are ratings inconsistent? A: Different evaluators use different standards. Provide clear rubrics.
Q: What does "Bias Risk" mean? A: High variation suggests evaluators may not be objective.
Q: How is consistency calculated? A: Based on standard deviation of ratings within a position.
Related
- Pipeline Status - See how ratings affect advancement
- Rejected Candidates - Understand rejection patterns