Skip to main content

- Username
- Password
forgot?

iRubric: Interview Evaluation rubric

iRubric: Interview Evaluation rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Interview Evaluation Interview Evaluation This is a rubric to evaluate interviews for qualitative research. Rubric Code: L58B48 By tbenally Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Education Type: (Other) Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Interview Evaluation This is a rubric to evaluate interviews for qualitative research.
	Poor 1 pts	Fair 2 pts	Good 3 pts	Excellent 4 pts
Interview Preparation Guiding Questions Open-Ended, Clear, Understandable, Neutral and Non-Leading, Reflecting Purpose of the Research (Hatch, 2002, p. 145)	Poor Not prepared, only 1-2 guiding questions for 15-20 min. interview. Few questions were open-ended, phrased without ambiguity. some non-leading reflecting purpose of this research.	Fair 3-4 guiding questions for a 15 - 20 min interview. Some questions were open-ended, phrased without ambiguity. some non-leading reflecting purpose of this research.	Good 5 guiding questions for a 15 - 20 min interview. Most questions were open-ended, phrased with out ambiguity. non-leading questions reflecting purpose of this research.	Excellent 5+ guiding questions for a 15 - 20 min interview. The questions were open-ended, phrased w/o ambiguity. non-leading questions reflecting purpose of this research.
Introduction 1 Describe your Credentials as an Interviewer, Reinforcement of Interviewee's Sense of Competence	Poor I forgot to introduce myself. I did not give the purpose for the interview. I was in a hurry.	Fair I forgot to introduce myself and give the purpose for the interview. Some of the time gave reinforced and valued their input /knowledge.	Good I introduced myself and gave the purpose for the interview. Most of the time gave reinforced and valued their input /knowledge.	Excellent I introduced myself and gave the purpose for the interview. I reinforced the interviewee's sense of competence (valued their input and knowledge)
Introduction 2 Intro. Statements, Description of the topic, Explanation Purpose Interview	Poor Not applicable or poor (non-existent). I discussed the purpose of the interview in great detail with my colleague before the interview.	Fair Sometimes introduced MS using statements Sometimes gave a description of the topic, and explanation of General Purpose of the Interview	Good Introduced MS using statements Description of the topic, Explanation of General Purpose of the Interview	Excellent Introductory Statements given Description of the topic, Explanation of General Purpose of the Interview
Responses to Overall Topic Interviewee's Responses to Overall Topic, Interviewee's Responses / Experiences Matching with Questions, Topic Narrowed Down	Poor The interviewee was not easily able to match her responses to my questions. No responses were extend and no further detail given.	Fair Some interviewee match of responses to questions. Some interviewees' could extend, provide further detail. Experience also matched the questions.	Good The interviewee was easily able to match her responses to my questions. Most interviewees' could extend, provide further detail. Experience also matched the questions.	Excellent The interviewee could easily match responses to questions. All could extend and provide further detail. Experience matched the questions.
Responses to Questions Interviewee's Responses Matching Individual Questions and Related to the Questions Asked	Poor The interviewee was not able to answer many individual questions. Responses did not answer most of the questions with no extension and detail.	Fair The interviewee was not able to answer all individual questions. Responses did answer most of the questions with little extension and provide little further detail.	Good The interviewee was easily able to answer most individual questions. Responses did answer most of the questions with extension and provide further detail.	Excellent The interviewee was easily able to answer individual questions. Responses did answer all the questions with extension and provide further detail.
Depth and Examples Interview Responses Provide In-Depth Information and Examples (Rubin & Rubin, 2005, p. 127)	Poor The interviewee provided no depth of information, was not able to give specific examples from experience; provided no additional information.	Fair The interviewee provided some depth of information, able to give few specific examples from experience; provided little/ no additional information.	Good The interviewee provided some depth of information, able to give some specific examples from experience; provided good additional information.	Excellent The interviewee provided great in-depth information, was able to give specific examples using her experience, and provided good additional information.
Conversation and Natural Flow Interview Work as a Conversation, Natural Flow of Questions, Appropriate Responses by Interviewer (Rubin & Rubin, 2005, p. 127)	Poor The interview was not a natural conversation It was stilted, I was nervous and loss focus I fumbled around with the questions	Fair The interview was somewhat of a conversation; I stuck to my written questions. No adjusted of questions depending on the responses.	Good Most of interview was natural conversation, some question flow generally good givetake responses. Adjusted questions depending on the responses.	Excellent The interview was a natural conversation with flow of questions appropriate givetake responses. Adjusted questions depending on the responses.
Transcription Recorded Interviews Transcribed and Transcription Checked Against Original Recording in Timely Manner (Hatch, 2002, p. 145)	Poor I transcribed the interview while it took place. I could not check for accuracy.	Fair I transcribed the interview as it took place. I asked the interviewee to check for accuracy.	Good I transcribed the recorded interview and checked the transcript against the original recording within five days of the interview.	Excellent I transcribed the recorded interview and checked the transcript against the original recording within 3 days of the interview.
Appropriate Interviewee Selection Interviewee Selected Appropriately, Selection Justified (Hatch, 2002, p. 144)	Poor I could have made a more appropriate choice of interviewees. The interviewees did not attend a middle school and were not interested.	Fair I could have made a more appropriate choice of interviewees. The interviewees had little understanding or knowledge of middle schools.	Good My choice of interviewees was generally appropriate. The interviewees had good understanding of middle schools and showed interest.	Excellent My choice of interviewees was very appropriate. The interviewees had excellent understanding of middle schools and were passionate.

Keywords:

Qualitative Research

Subjects:

Types:

Discuss this rubric

You may also be interested in:

More rubrics by this author

More Education rubrics

More Assignment rubrics

Do more with this rubric:

Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.

Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.

Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.

Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.

Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.

Assess

Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.

Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.

Share

Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.

Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.

Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubric^tm.

Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

n178