Every candidate who takes a test forms a view of the organisation behind it, and most of them will not get the job. This article explains why candidate experience matters, what research says about how applicants react to assessments, and practical ways to make testing fair, clear and worth taking for everyone.

Why candidate experience matters

A poor recruitment process costs more than one candidate. People who feel badly treated are less likely to accept an offer, more likely to drop out and more likely to tell others, including on review sites. Many candidates are also customers. Glassdoor reports that candidate contentment has been declining since 2021 [1], so employers who get this right stand out.

Assessment is often the first substantial contact a candidate has with an employer. Done well, it shows that the organisation is fair, professional and interested in people. Done badly, it can feel like an obstacle course.

What research says about applicant reactions

Gilliland's influential model of applicant reactions set out the features that make a selection process feel fair, including job relatedness, the chance to show what you can do, consistent treatment, honest information and timely feedback [2]. A meta-analysis by Hausknecht, Day and Thomas found that applicants' perceptions of fairness were linked to how attractive they found the organisation and whether they intended to accept a job offer [3]. Methods that look clearly related to the job, such as work samples, interviews and well-designed SJTs, tend to be rated more favourably.

Practical ways to improve candidate experience

Make the link to the job obvious. Choose tests that clearly reflect the role, and explain in the invitation why each test is used. Realistic SJT scenarios and work-skills tests are easy for candidates to see the point of.

Prepare candidates properly. Give clear instructions, practice questions with explanations, and an honest idea of how long each test will take. Familiarity reduces anxiety and makes results fairer.

Keep it proportionate. Use the shortest process that gives you the evidence you need. Asking for hours of testing at the first stage puts good candidates off.

Remove unnecessary pressure. Use time limits only where speed matters for the job. All Viewpoint SJTs and personality questionnaires are untimed.

Make adjustments easy to request. Invite candidates to tell you what they need, and consider each request individually.

Give something back. Feedback is one of the strongest drivers of fairness perceptions, and it is often the most neglected. Viewpoint Candidate Reports give every candidate constructive development suggestions without showing scores, so even unsuccessful candidates leave with something useful.

Communicate throughout. Tell candidates what happens next and when, and close the loop when a decision is made.

Be open about technology

Candidates increasingly want to know whether AI is used to score or screen them. Being open about how results are produced, and confirming that people make the decisions, builds trust. It also reflects regulators' expectations, as our article on psychometric tests and the new AI rules explains.

Measuring candidate experience

Track completion and drop-out at each stage, ask a sample of candidates (successful and unsuccessful) for brief feedback, and look at offer acceptance. Our article on assessment drop-out rates looks at completion in more detail.

See our situational judgement tests, our article on SJTs and fairness, or contact us to discuss your candidate journey.

Frequently asked questions

Do candidates dislike psychometric tests?

Not when tests are clearly job-related, well explained and followed by useful feedback. Reactions depend much more on how tests are chosen and used than on testing itself.

Should every candidate get feedback?

Yes, where possible. Viewpoint Candidate Reports make this practical, because they are produced automatically and written to be constructive.

How long should an assessment stage be?

As short as possible while still giving the evidence you need. Tell candidates the expected time in advance.

Does candidate experience affect who accepts offers?

Research suggests it does: perceptions of fairness are linked to how attractive candidates find the organisation and whether they intend to accept an offer.

References

1. Glassdoor (2026). How to measure candidate experience: key metrics and survey strategies. Glassdoor.
2. Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: an organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 694–734.
3. Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V. & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: an updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 639–683.