Core Value

Humility

Assessing

How to assess or score: for non-subject matter experts

Whatever your question (if you choose or adapt a question from the Anchoring section or create your own), the Deep Dive table can help you identify positive and negative aspects – green or red flags in a candidate’s answers.

For a simple scoring or assessment scheme, you can simply assign +1 to positive or green flag content and -1 to red flag answers.  

For a scoring system of say 0-3 for each question, we would recommend the following matrix to be used in combination with the Deep Dive table for each value or competency. We recommend printing copies of the Deep Dive tables, as well as the full Murad Code, so that these can be easily consulted when assessing a candidate.

Below, there is also an assessment guide to the sample questions provided in the Anchoring section.

Sample written test questions

Hypothetical (can be based on relevant context and job requirements):

1. In a context where there has been a lot of donor interest and funding already for SCRSV work, you have been contracted by an NGO to help them set up survivor engagement activities. What advice do you give them and what steps do you recommend them taking?

Main elements expected in answers: sets up survivor consultation in terms of needs and value added purposes in engagement, considers co-design with survivor networks, considers actor mapping (Principle 5.5 of the Murad Code) to understand who else is doing what work in that context, uses the factors set out in Principle 4 of the Code to understand whether that NGO should be doing that work or not and whether there is someone else better placed or already doing the work, considers whether other minimum standards of the Code can be met if the work passes the Principle 4 test, including conducting risk assessments, mapping of support services, assessing competency and systems readiness, etc.

Red flags: focuses on donor priorities and funding, drafts proposal before any of the consultation or assessment work done, does not mention actor mapping or that someone else might already be doing the work or be better placed to do it.

2. You are working for organisation with a certain mandate (human rights reporting, etc). You are aware that many SCRSV survivors have already been interviewed. What are some of the key approaches you can take to ensure safe, ethical and effective/survivor-centred work appropriate to your mandate?

Main elements expected in answers: acknowledges risk of retraumatisation of reinterview and of creating multiple conflicting or inconsistent statements, considers the option of  obtaining existing documentation through survivor consent as an alternative to reinterviewing, considers if prior statements can be obtained and used to reduce and focus any interview to a clarifying questions or missing information only, suggests alternative sources and triangulation of data rather than reliance on direct survivor interviews, puts in place protocol not to reinterview whenever possible, builds information-sharing networks based on informed consent and information protection/confidentiality, recognises mandate does not require direct testimony from survivors.

Red flags: focuses on mandate and importance of direct testimony in terms of credibility/veracity, does not acknowledge risks created, takes rigid approach if institutional practice usually seeks direct testimony (in cases where this institutional practice is at fault and personnel can exercise discretion about whether to follow that practice), shows unwillingness to consider alternative sources or information sharing, minimises or dismisses work of other without basis/assessment.

Technical test:

1. Describe a work experience in which you had to manage a situation where cultural values or norms conflicted with survivor-centred care.

Main elements expected in answers: provides clear, detailed example where cultural or gender narratives impacts how the work could be done (can be discriminatory - asking husband’s permission to speak to victim, movement restrictions limiting victim to house but without private space away from family, derogatory language relating to gender (for or about women or LGBTQI+ persons), child victims and victims of early marriage who are not treated as children in the community, community leaders or intermediaries controlling access to victims or overriding informed consent processes, etc.), describes the impact or barrier to survivor-centred/MC standards, talks of seeking community/cultural/context expertise to find solution to navigate/negotiate without compromising survivor-centred principles and safety, considers or decides not to proceed because could not accommodate those cultural norms and be survivor- centred, reflects on lesson learned. 

Red flags: dismisses or disregards cultural norms, does not seek community/context expertise or consultation, prioritises cultural norms at the expense of survivor-centred approaches, carries on without solution found, decides not to proceed because it is too difficult to identify a solution, without demonstrating understanding of what the solutions could have been. 

Sample interview questions

1. Describe one work example where you have put the interests and needs of survivors ahead of your own mandate and objectives. How did you defuse pressure to deliver?

Main elements expected in answers: provides clear, detailed example which actually put survivors first, describes ethical or safety reasoning, articulates steps taken to manage stakeholders demanding organisational objectives delivered.

Red flags: actually describes achieving own goals despite someone’s needs or consequences, justifies it based on ‘bigger picture’, ‘justice for all’, stopping future atrocities at the expense of an individual survivor, does not manage stakeholders or pressure at all, speaks of it in terms of failing.

2. Describe a situation in which you reflected on the limitations of you and your team, and decided to seek expert advice and guidance?

Main elements expected in answers: provides clear, detailed example which illustrates honest reflection on limitations and need for expertise, acceptance of advice and adapted approach/action based on that advice, with a positive outcome, reflects on lessons learned.

Red flags: provides vague or irrelevant answer, does not concede any limitation or weakness, is defensive about limitation, does not accept guidance or expert advice given, does not adapt to advice.

3. Describe a work example where you sought perspectives, input and dialogue of survivors, survivor networks, local communities or those with experience in that context?

Main elements expected in answers: provides clear, detailed example which demonstrates a positive attitude towards this and the value obtained by doing so, recognises survivors as experts with lived experience and the value of that, mentions how the safety and wellbeing of survivors was maintained throughout this process, is able to describe how that consultation shaped actions and outcomes, reflects on lessons learned.

Red flags: provides vague or irrelevant answer, is unable to give example, expresses reservation at approach and need, omits to mention how survivors’ safety and wellbeing was maintained throughout the process or implies the harm was justifiable based on the value of their contribution, does not describe how consultation was used to shape work and outcomes, is patronising or paternalistic about such engagement.

4. Can you share an experience when you made a mistake at work. What did you do? What did you learn from it, and how did you address it?

Main elements expected in answers: provides clear, detailed example which demonstrates honest admission of a real mistake, taking responsibility for it and correcting any harm done, reflects on lessons learned, changes approach as a result.

Red flags: refuses to admit or concede mistake, describes vague or irrelevant mistake, doesn’t take personal responsibility, blames someone else, minimises impact, does not learn from it, cannot articulate any learning or change in approach.

5. Tell me about a time when you prioritised a survivor’s wishes and needs over organisational goals or personal achievement.

Main elements expected in answers: provides clear, detailed example which actually put others first, describes ethical or safety reasoning, shows capacity to stop or postpone if necessary [including when this requires pushing back against management/donors/etc.], and describes positive outcome and value in having done so, why it was important.

Red flags: actually describes achieving own goals despite someone’s needs or consequences (e.g. convincing a survivor to continue anyway), justifies it based on ‘bigger picture’, ‘justice for all’, stopping future atrocities at the expense of an individual survivor, speaks of it in terms of failing or a lost opportunity. 

6. Explain a moment when you realised that you needed better local understanding (language, culture, history). What did you do about it?

Main elements expected in answers: provides clear, detailed example which acknowledges the importance of contextual understanding, admits initial gap and what steps were taken (including engagement of or consultation with community-based and context experts), reflects on lessons learned and value in involving community/cultural/contextual experts.

Red flags: provides a vague or irrelevant example, downplays importance or own limitations, assumes contextual understanding can be gained from quick lesson/learning/ChatGPT, doesn’t refer to community-based/context experts or expertise.

7. You have made all the arrangements for a survivor interview during a short window of opportunity to meet them when you have access to a safe space, a good interpreter of the right gender and while you are in-country. When you meet at the interview location, you noticed that the survivor seems to be in some discomfort, holding the side of their stomach and grimacing in pain. They do not complain. What do you do?

Main elements expected in answers: provides a clear focus on survivor needs and comfort, pauses and sensitively asks the survivor whether they are comfortable or need anything, offers referral for medical assistance, gives survivor choice about rescheduling or continuing, speaks of an escalation protocol and knowing how to refer for acute medical needs, recognises that someone in pain cannot focus well so both survivor safety and effectiveness are at stake.

Red flags: carries on as the survivor decided not to complain, focuses on window of opportunity, minimises or ignore safety and well-being issue, decides it can be managed through referrals after the interview.

8. You are a [journalist/researcher/investigator/documenter/monitor/etc.-anything other than a counsellor/MHPSS person]. While at work, a survivor approaches you and wants to share their story. They explain that they just want someone to listen to them and to be heard. They do not want justice or to raise awareness. In fact, they don’t want anyone else to know anything they tell you. What do you do?

Main elements expected in answers: provides an answer that recognises that, in a professional capacity, they are not the person this survivor needs, respectfully seeks to ask whether they know about counselling services for sustained support and someone whose role is to provide this sort of support, indicates that, if prepared to listen, it would not be in a professional capacity, maintains confidentiality and respects their requests, does not use for work or seek to write it down, does not use anecdotally either.

Red flags: does not recognise the boundaries of their professional role or that someone else may professionally meet the needs of this survivor better, suggests recording it or writing it down, pressures the survivor to be able to use the information later, shares with colleagues, justifies failure to respect survivor autonomy by greater good or professional mandate.

9. You have been invited to attend a UN SC/GA hearing-session or large conference to talk about what has happened to SCRSV survivors in the context in which you are working? How do you respond and prepare of this presentation?

Main elements expected in answers: considers whether there is a survivor advocate who might be better placed to do this, consults with survivors and otherwise centres survivors’ voices, experiences and needs (as described by them), acknowledges risks of speaking for survivors, frames presentation around survivor agency, courage, dignity and needs.

Red flags: sees it as an opportunity for self or organisation promotion, considers themselves the expert on this topic, no mention of survivor consultation or any concern around speaking instead of or on behalf of survivors, frames self as spokesperson or representative of survivors or as an expert on survivors’ experiences.

10. How do you reflect on and address your own bias, stigmas and assumptions in this work?

Main elements expected in answers: gives concrete, detailed example of self-reflection or a catalyst to recognition, how important it was and what learning and changes have resulted, including a positive framing of the outcome.

Red flags: cannot accept they have any bias or stigma, cannot describe or initiate any self-reflection, minimises or is dismissive of bias, stigma, etc, or does not accept its influence/effect, claims they are neutral, totally impartial without any description of the work they do to achieve that. Even when pressed, cannot name any bias or assumptions they may make.

Jump to Next Category: