# Work Samples and Skills Assessments: practice workbook
Talent Engineering Academy | An education initiative by Vitae
Edition 2026.09 | Updated 2026-09-24
Course: https://talentengineering.org/courses/work-samples

Create proportionate job-relevant tasks, score the work consistently and avoid unpaid production assignments.

## Your deliverable
A candidate task, preparation brief and scoring rubric.

Use fictional information. Keep your completed work in your own secure notes. Exercises and capstone work are self-directed, not independently assessed.

## 1. Capability and realistic task

Your notes:



## 2. Candidate instructions and time allowance

Your notes:



## 3. Permitted tools and assistance

Your notes:



## 4. Accessible alternatives and support

Your notes:



## 5. Scoring criteria and example responses

Your notes:



## 6. Pilot findings and revision

Your notes:



## Lesson exercises

### 1. Choose a representative slice of work

Design a 30-minute task for one essential criterion.

Your response:


Worked example: A quality role receives a fictional incident log and is asked to identify likely causes and the next evidence to gather. It is not asked to solve an active client problem or produce a complete operational audit.

Self-review guidance: State the capability, supplied information and expected output. Explain why the task resembles relevant work and does not require company-specific knowledge the candidate has not been given.

### 2. Write instructions that reduce irrelevant variation

Write a candidate brief including tools, time, support and evaluation criteria.

Your response:


Worked example: Candidates may use a spreadsheet and reference notes, but must explain their assumptions and identify any AI-assisted steps. The rubric scores analytical reasoning and verification, not the visual polish of the slide deck.

Self-review guidance: A candidate should know what to submit and how it will be judged without a private coaching conversation. Include a clear question route and a practical process for requesting adjustments.

### 3. Score outputs using evidence and anchors

Score three fictional outputs and write the rationale for each dimension.

Your response:


Worked example: Two candidates use different diagnostic methods but both identify missing data and a safe next step. The rubric credits sound reasoning rather than awarding full marks only to the assessor’s preferred diagram.

Self-review guidance: Show which evidence meets each anchor. Note where a different method is still valid and where a polished output lacks reasoning. Do not let presentation quality silently dominate the total.

### 4. Pilot fairness, burden and usefulness

Create a pilot checklist and revise your task after two fictional tester observations.

Your response:


Worked example: A pilot takes an experienced employee ninety minutes despite a thirty-minute estimate. The team reduces the scope and clarifies the data rather than blaming candidates for incomplete submissions.

Self-review guidance: Record actual completion time, ambiguous instructions and barriers. Explain what evidence the task adds and what it cannot establish. A successful pilot demonstrates usability, not universal predictive validity.

## Portfolio review
Check that your work is internally consistent, distinguishes facts from assumptions, names decision owners and explains its limitations. Revise gaps before using the method in real work.

## Further reading
- [CIPD: Selection methods](https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/factsheets/selection-factsheet/): Professional context for selection methods and their limitations.
- [GOV.UK: Discrimination in recruitment](https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/recruitment): UK legal context. Obtain advice for your jurisdiction and circumstances.

Original educational scenarios. References provide further reading and do not imply endorsement. Check current official rules and appropriate professional advice for real legal, financial or regulated decisions.