A technical assessment is a single focused instrument. Each assessment in the library covers one competency and one format — either MCQ or Case Study. These are created separately in the library and assigned independently. The previous model of bundling multiple formats (MCQ, Case Study, Interview) into a single assessment container is superseded; formats are now separate saved assessments.
Interview is no longer a format inside a technical assessment. When you assign a technical assessment, you have the option to schedule a standalone interview for the person at assignment time. That interview is its own entity — it mirrors the hiring-pipeline interview flow (offered slots, duration, location, interviewers; rubric resolved from the person's position default) and appears in the person's interview list separately from the assessment.
The two formats
MCQ — multiple choice questions
A timed bank of multiple-choice questions. Each question tests whether the candidate or employee knows a specific fact, concept, or can apply a rule. The platform scores automatically: each question has a correct answer, and the score is the proportion correct.
Use MCQ when you want fast, objective signal on domain knowledge — licensing rules, financial regulations, safety procedures, or any content where "knows it / doesn't know it" is the right question. MCQ is weak for judging judgment.
Case study — written response
The candidate receives a realistic scenario — a business problem, a dataset, a design brief, a code sample, or a client situation — and writes a response. Responses can include a file attachment (PDF, spreadsheet, image).
Once the candidate submits, the platform's AI drafts a rubric score for each criterion defined in the template, plus a short summary of what the response addressed well and what it missed. A reviewer — someone whose role holds Evaluate people (always a Workspace Admin, plus any role you give it, such as a line-manager role) — then sees the AI draft and either confirms it as-is or edits any criterion score and the summary. The confirmed scores become the final case study result.
Use case study when you need to see how someone structures a problem, communicates under constraint, and handles ambiguity — the things MCQ cannot surface. It takes longer to review, but the evidence is richer.
Creating assessments for both formats
If you want to assess a competency in both MCQ and Case Study, create two assessments in the library — one for each format. In the creation wizard, ticking both MCQ and Case Study when building a technical assessment saves two separate assessments automatically, so you do not have to run the wizard twice.
You then assign whichever format is appropriate for the situation — or assign both independently on different timelines.
How the standalone interview connects
When you assign a technical assessment, the assignment wizard offers an Add interview step. This schedules a standalone interview for the assessee using the standard slot-booking flow: offered time slots, duration, location, and interviewers. The rubric defaults to the one defined on the assessee's position but can be adjusted.
The interview produces its own result record. If you want the interview result to inform the same development conversation as the MCQ or case study result, you read both records together — the platform does not automatically merge them into a combined score, because the interview is a separate event.
Completion logic
MCQ: The assessment reaches Completed the moment the candidate submits and auto-scoring finishes.
Case study: The assessment reaches Completed when the candidate has submitted and a reviewer has confirmed the AI-drafted scores. An unconfirmed draft does not count as complete.
Standalone interview: The interview reaches a terminal state when all interviewers have submitted their rubric scores after the session.
Who reviews the case study
Anyone whose role holds Evaluate people can review a case study. The reviewer's task is to read the candidate's response and any attachment, review the AI's draft scores and summary, edit what needs correcting, and confirm.
There are three ways to reach the review screen:
- Notification — the moment the candidate submits, reviewers get an "A case study is awaiting review" notification that links straight to the review screen.
- Person profile — open the person, and in the Assessments section a Review case study button appears on any case study that is submitted or AI-graded (it becomes View case study once scored).
- Develop dashboard — a Case studies awaiting review queue lists every case study waiting on a score, each with a Review & score action. For line managers the queue is limited to their reporting tree.
The AI draft is a starting point, not a decision. The reviewer's confirmed scores are what the system stores.
Reading the result
The assessment report shows the score for the format the assessment covers. For MCQ you see a percentage with a per-topic breakdown if the template is tagged by topic. For case study you see the score by criterion, the reviewer's confirmed summary, and a link to the original response.
If you also ran a standalone interview, the interview result is accessible from the person's interview history.
Next
The assessment library page explains how templates are built and which format each template supports.