# What counts as evidence that a candidate can do the job?

> Not everything in an application is evidence. A five-level ladder, from doing the work in front of you to describing yourself, with what the research says about each, a worked example, and how to judge what a candidate would bring.

Jennifer at SortTheStack, October 19, 2026. Original: https://sortthestack.com/blog/evidence-a-candidate-can-do-the-job

**The strongest evidence that someone can do a job is watching them do a piece
of it, or hearing a specific, checkable account of having done it before. The
weakest is how they describe themselves.** Between those sit job titles,
responsibilities and credentials, which tell you what someone was exposed to,
not how well they did it.

Most hiring mistakes come from treating all of these as equal: counting
"detail-oriented" or "five years in accounting" as if it were the same kind of
information as a reconciliation they walked you through. This article gives you
a simple way to tell them apart.

## A ladder of evidence

This ladder is our framework, built on the research below. It runs from
strongest to weakest:

| Level | Kind of evidence                       | Example for a Senior Accountant                                            | Where you get it                  |
| ----- | -------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------- |
| 1     | **Doing the work now**                 | Reconciles a sample account in a 45-minute exercise                        | Work sample, job knowledge test   |
| 2     | **Specific, checkable accomplishment** | "Ran the close for a 60-person distributor; cut it from nine days to five" | Application, structured interview |
| 3     | **Responsibility held**                | "Responsible for month-end close"                                          | Resume                            |
| 4     | **Proxy**                              | "Seven years of accounting experience"; a degree; a well-known employer    | Resume                            |
| 5     | **Self-description**                   | "Detail-oriented, strong communicator, team player"                        | Resume, cover letter              |

Each level up costs more to collect. That's why the first screen relies on
levels 2 and 3, and why the later stages should move up to level 1.

## What the research says

A [2022 re-analysis of selection research](https://sortthestack.com/blog/what-predicts-job-performance)
by Sackett, Zhang, Berry and Lievens estimated how well different methods
predict job performance, where 0 means no relationship:

| Method                 | Estimated validity | Ladder level |
| ---------------------- | ------------------ | ------------ |
| Structured interview   | .42                | 1–2          |
| Job knowledge test     | .40                | 1            |
| Work sample test       | .33                | 1            |
| Unstructured interview | .19                | Mixed        |
| Years of experience    | .07                | 4            |

The pattern matches the ladder. Methods that observe the work, or ask everyone
about specific past behaviour in the same way, predict better than counting
years. Two cautions: these are averages across many jobs and studies, and even
the best method leaves a great deal unexplained. No evidence makes a hire
certain. Stronger evidence makes it less of a guess.

Newer methods, such as asynchronous video interviews and tests scored by AI,
are still being studied. A 2026 review of the field by
[Sackett, Lievens and Landers](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-072127)
covers them alongside the established methods; until the evidence on a new
method is as strong, treat it with more caution than the ones in the table.

Self-descriptions sit at the bottom for a simple reason: everyone writes them,
and writing them costs nothing. That's even more true now that many
applications are drafted with AI, which makes polished, confident wording
universal. Our article on
[AI-written applications](https://sortthestack.com/blog/ai-written-applications) covers how to screen
when every resume reads well.

## How to read an application for evidence

You can't run a work sample on 200 applicants, so the first read has to find
level 2 and 3 evidence quickly. Look for:

- **Ownership.** "Ran", "prepared", "signed off" and "built" describe someone
  doing the work. "Assisted with", "exposure to" and "involved in" usually
  describe someone near it. Neither is disqualifying, but they aren't the same.
- **Scale and context.** "Ran payroll" for 8 people and for 800 are different
  jobs. Look for the size of the team, the budget, the client or the volume.
- **A result.** A before-and-after, a deadline met, a problem solved. Specific
  results are easier to check and harder to invent.
- **Recency.** Something done last year counts for more than something done a
  decade ago, unless the skill hasn't changed.
- **Consistency.** Dates, titles and claims that agree across the resume, the
  application answers and later conversations. Inconsistency isn't proof of
  anything, but it's worth a question.

## A worked example

Larkspur Partners, a fictional accounting firm used throughout our guides, has
a must-have: _has run a month-end close independently_. Here are four invented
lines from four applications, and how we'd read them:

| What the application says                                                                         | Level | Reading                                                        |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |
| "Owned month-end close for three entities; reduced close from 9 to 5 days by automating accruals" | 2     | Meets it, with strong evidence                                 |
| "Responsible for month-end close and reporting"                                                   | 3     | Probably meets it; confirm they ran it rather than contributed |
| "Assisted senior accountant with month-end close"                                                 | 3     | Doesn't show it yet; worth a question if otherwise strong      |
| "8 years in accounting; highly organised and detail-oriented"                                     | 4–5   | Unclear: nothing here addresses the requirement                |

The fourth applicant may well have run a close many times. The application just
doesn't say so, which makes it **unclear**, not a fail. A one-line question
settles it, and is far cheaper than losing a good accountant to a badly written
resume.

## "What does this candidate bring?"

Requirements tell you whether someone can do the job as it is. Sometimes you
also want to know what they'd add: a skill the team doesn't have, a different
way of working, or the ability to grow into a bigger role. That's a fair thing
to look for, as long as you treat it as evidence too.

- **Name it in advance.** "Has set up a process from scratch" or "has trained
  others" is assessable. "Brings something special" isn't, and an undefined
  criterion fills itself with personal preference. Our guide to
  [hiring for your team](https://sortthestack.com/blog/hiring-for-your-team) shows how to work out what
  your team is missing.
- **Look for evidence of learning, not claims of it.** "Moved from audit to
  industry and was running the close within four months" is level 2 evidence of
  learning quickly. "Fast learner" is level 5.
- **Be careful with "potential".** Cognitive ability tests predict performance
  reasonably well (an estimated .31 in the 2022 re-analysis), but the same paper
  reports a large average Black–White difference in scores on them, which
  raises fairness and legal questions. If you assess potential, use the same structured
  questions or exercise for everyone, and don't let it override the must-haves.

## When the evidence is unclear

Unclear is an answer. It means you don't know yet. The worst thing to do with
it is decide silently, in either direction. Instead:

1. **Ask one specific question** before shortlisting: "Did you run the close
   yourself, or support someone who did?"
2. **Test it later**, if the applicant is otherwise strong: a work sample or a
   structured interview question aimed at that requirement.
3. **Write down what you found**, so the next person doesn't have to ask again.

## Where SortTheStack fits

SortTheStack reads each application against your requirements and marks every
one met, not met or unclear, quoting the lines it relied on, so you can check
the evidence yourself. It doesn't produce a score. Inconsistencies, such as
overlapping full-time jobs, are flagged under Profile consistency for you to
ask about.
[See how the screening works](https://sortthestack.com/product).

## Sources

- 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), 2040–2068.
  [doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994](https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994)
- Sackett, P. R., Lievens, F., & Landers, R. N. (2026). Hiring people in
  organizations: The state and future of the science. _Annual Review of
  Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 13_, 49–75.
  [doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-072127](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-072127)