The science behind CVIQ

Hiring is a prediction problem. We built CVIQ on what actually predicts.

Decades of personnel-selection research show which hiring signals actually predict job performance. CVIQ builds on the two strongest: a role-relevant résumé analysis and a structured, scored interview, combined into one transparent score. Everything below is cited, with the caveats kept in.

The model

Two valid signals, combined into one explainable score

A CVIQ score has two parts. The Quant component grades your résumé against a role-specific rubric (max 500). The Qual component scores a structured interview on your demonstrated answers (max 1080). Together they make one score out of 1580. We combine the two with a consistent formula, which the research shows outperforms holistic gut judgment.

>50%
more accurate to combine valid signals mechanically than to rely on expert “gut” judgment.
Kuncel, Klieger, Connelly & Ones, Journal of Applied Psychology (2013)
1580
one score, shown as its parts: Quant (résumé, 500) + Qual (interview, 1080).
CVIQ scoring model
The interview · Qual

Structured interviews are the strongest single predictor of performance

Under the field's current, corrected estimates, a structured interview is the top-ranked predictor of job performance, ahead of general cognitive ability. “Structured” means the same questions and the same scoring rubric for everyone. CVIQ scores demonstrated answers across four dimensions: subject proficiency, communication, problem-solving and judgment, and ownership.

.42
operational validity of structured interviews, the top-ranked predictor, above general mental ability (.31).
Sackett, Zhang, Berry & Lievens, Journal of Applied Psychology (2022)
Structured interviews, where you ask the same question of every candidate and evaluate them the same way, are the best predictors of success.Laszlo Bock, former SVP of People Operations, Google (Wired, 2015)

The most rigorous hirers in the world converged on the same idea:

GoogleIts re:Work guidance drops brainteasers in favor of structured interviews with standardized rubrics and an evidence-based hiring committee.
AmazonThe “Bar Raiser” is a trained, independent interviewer who applies one consistent standard across candidates to counter individual bias.
McKinseyThe Personal Experience Interview: a highly structured behavioral interview scored on defined dimensions, weighted alongside the case.
The résumé, in context · Quant

Credentials are a noisy, biased signal. Demonstrated capability predicts more.

A résumé is only one input. In a landmark field experiment, identical résumés with White-sounding names received 50% more callbacks than those with Black-sounding names, a gap the authors estimated as equal to eight extra years of experience. A 2022 study of more than 83,000 applications to 108 of the largest U.S. employers found the same pattern at scale. CVIQ grades the résumé as evidence against a role's requirements and gives the demonstrated interview the greater weight.

50%
more callbacks for identical résumés with White-sounding vs. Black-sounding names.
Bertrand & Mullainathan, American Economic Review (2004)
<1 in 700
2023 hires that actually resulted from employers dropping degree requirements. Intent without a rigorous skills signal changes little.
Burning Glass Institute & Harvard Business School (2024)

That gap between skills-based intentions and skills-based hiring is exactly what a consistent, demonstrated-capability score is built to close.

Fair by design

We score the substance of your answers

One discredited practice, inferring competence from facial expressions or affect, drew an FTC complaint and led a major vendor to drop facial analysis in 2021. CVIQ performs no facial, emotion, or affect analysis. We score the transcribed content of answers against a role-relevant rubric, and a human makes the final decision. That design is where the science and every emerging law point.

Adverse-impact awareWe monitor selection rates against the EEOC four-fifths (80%) rule. Structure reduces bias, so we test for it continuously.
Audit-readyBuilt for bias-audit regimes such as NYC Local Law 144 and the Illinois AI Video Interview Act, with transparency and consent included.
Aligned with the EU AI ActHuman oversight, data governance, and transparency: the principles the Act requires for high-risk hiring tools.
Transparent by defaultEvery candidate sees their own score broken into its Quant and Qual parts and the evidence behind each.
An honest note on the evidence. The validity figures above are correlation coefficients from meta-analyses. In this field that signals a strong predictor, and it does not mean “percent accurate.” Structured, standardized methods reduce bias, though they do not eliminate it, which is why continuous auditing, including transcription accuracy across accents, is part of the design. When a figure comes from a company case study, we label it as such, and we cite ranges and full sources.
Get your Career Score →Recruiter sign in
References
  • Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11). doi:10.1037/apl0000994
  • Kuncel, N. R., Klieger, D. M., Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2013). Mechanical versus clinical data combination in selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6). doi:10.1037/a0034156
  • McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4). doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.599
  • Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 67(1). doi:10.1111/peps.12052
  • Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? American Economic Review, 94(4). doi:10.1257/0002828042002561
  • Kline, P., Rose, E. K., & Walters, C. R. (2022). Systemic Discrimination Among Large U.S. Employers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(4). doi:10.1093/qje/qjac024
  • Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems. Academy of Management Review, 18(4). doi:10.2307/258595
  • Burning Glass Institute & Harvard Business School (2024). Skills-Based Hiring: The Long Road from Pronouncements to Practice.
  • Bock, L. (2015). Work Rules! Grand Central Publishing · Google re:Work · Amazon “Bar Raiser” (aboutamazon.com) · McKinsey Careers.
  • EEOC Uniform Guidelines, 29 CFR §1607 · NYC Local Law 144 (2021) · Illinois AI Video Interview Act, 820 ILCS 42 · EU AI Act, Reg. (EU) 2024/1689, Annex III(4).