From online interviews to game-based assessments

How candidates really experience your selection process

Candidates who feel respected and treated fairly:

• are more likely to complete the process;
• have a more positive image of your employer brand;
• will recommend your organisation;
• are less likely to complain or take legal action.

It is therefore essential for organisations that focus on quality and reputation to pay attention to the candidate experience in every part of the selection process.

How do candidates rate different selection tools?

Research shows a consistent pattern in how candidates experience selection tools. In general, methods are rated more positively when they feel logical for the position (face validity), give the impression of being based on scientifically sound principles, enable candidates to demonstrate their skills (opportunity to perform) and are used transparently and professionally.

A number of tools stand out as particularly positive:

• Work samples are rated most positively. They are realistic, relevant and make candidates feel that they are being assessed fairly. They require candidates to perform or simulate job-specific tasks (e.g. simulation exercises such as role-plays, analysis and presentation exercises, or case studies) and give candidates the opportunity to actually demonstrate their abilities.
  
  
• Knowledge tests and reasoning tests (such as numerical or verbal tests) are generally very well received, especially when it is clear why they are being administered. Abstract tests often have no direct link to the content of the job, but they measure underlying cognitive abilities such as logical reasoning, pattern recognition and learning potential. When candidates understand why these skills are relevant, acceptance levels increase significantly.
  
  
• Structured interviews (both situational and competency-based) score very well thanks to their clear structure and direct link to job behaviour.
  
  
• Personality questionnaires tend to be evaluated positively, especially when candidates have experience with this type of testing and when it is clear how the results will be used.
  
  
• Situational Judgement Tests (SJTs) are perceived as fair and relevant, especially when the situations are recognisable and relevant to the job context.
  
  
• CV screening is the most common step in selection procedures and is generally viewed positively.
  
  
• Reference checks are seen as only moderately positive. Candidates rate reference checks more positively when the process of contacting references is transparent.

On the other hand, some methods are clearly less favourably rated:

• Game-based assessments are perceived as playful or superficial and score particularly low on face validity, unless there is a clear link to job-relevant skills.
  
  
• Asynchronous video interviews (AVIs), where candidates answer pre-recorded questions by filming themselves, without any live interaction with an interviewer, are perceived as being very impersonal and lacking a scientific basis.
  
  
• The use of social media profiles raises concerns about privacy, transparency and scientific rigour.
  
  
• Relying on personal connections is not considered a formal selection method, but the suspicion that this plays a role undermines the credibility of the process and leads to negative perceptions.

What can you do to ensure a positive perception?

1. Opt for transparency
   Because candidates rate a method more positively when they understand why it is being used, try to provide context whenever you use a cognitive test, personality questionnaire or SJT; i.e. explain what do you want to measure and why is that relevant to the job.
   
   This even applies to tools that are generally perceived very positively, such as reasoning tests. Without sufficient explanation, these can still feel distant, academic or irrelevant—especially for positions where the link with cognitive skills is not obvious. A brief explanation beforehand, or feedback afterwards, will help prevent this perception and reinforce the feeling that the assessment is fair and meaningful.
   
   
2. Offer candidates opportunities to demonstrate their abilities
   Tools that allow people to actively demonstrate their abilities—such as simulation exercises (cases, role-plays, presentations), work samples or structured interviews—give candidates the feeling that they are being assessed fairly on what matters.
   
   
3. Be careful with new technology
   While tools such as game-based assessments or asynchronous video interviews may seem to be innovative, they are not always perceived as fair or pleasant. Organisations sometimes think that such tools will be regarded positively because they look trendy or attractive, but in practice this is not always the case. If you use them, provide clear explanations, a test example and, where possible, feedback.
   
   
4. Invest in quality
   Use only validated tools whose reliability and relevance have been scientifically proven. This applies to all methods: from motivation questionnaires to reasoning tests, from SJTs to personality questionnaires. Many candidates intuitively sense when a tool is 'serious'.
   
   
5. Keep it human, even digitally
   A professional and warm process inspires confidence. Provide clear communication, give candidates a point of contact and offer brief feedback where possible. This way, even an online test feels like a personal moment.

In conclusion

Providing a good experience for candidates increases your chances of recruiting the right person and strengthens your reputation as an employer. It therefore pays to look not only at the validity of a tool but also at how it is perceived. With the right approach, you can turn your selection process into a calling card.

Want to learn more?

Would you like to know more about how our tools contribute to a positive candidate experience? We would be happy to discuss this with you: Feel free to contact us.

¹ Based on insights from recent scientific literature, including Zibarras, L.D., Castano, G., & Cuppello, S. (2025). Applicant perceptions of selection methods: Replicating and extending previous research. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 33(2).