CV screening tools read a CV and score it against criteria set by the employer. Guidance from the UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) explains that these tools are often trained on historical hiring data, so they can carry forward the bias of past decisions and may rely on proxy indicators unrelated to the job. ^[1]

Examples in the guidance include scoring employment gaps in ways that disadvantage parents, carers and disabled people, and comparing applicants with past “ideal” CVs in ways that reinforce the under-representation of some groups. ^[1] US Department of Justice guidance warns that selection tools can screen out people with disabilities even without any intent to discriminate, and that the employer remains responsible when using a tool developed by another company. ^[3]

In Gulf workplaces there is a third risk. NIST’s Generative AI Profile notes that language models may perform less well in non-English languages and certain dialects. ^[4] An Arabic CV may be read less accurately than its English equivalent, which is bias even if nobody intended it.

Start from the role criteria, not the tool

Before assessing the tool, write down what the role actually needs: the required qualification, the type and length of experience, the skills that can be evidenced, and the languages required and at what level. Any criterion you cannot link to a task in the job description deserves a second look. For each criterion, set the evidence a CV must show: a certificate, a job title, or a project described by its result.

The Department of Justice guidance stresses that a test should measure the skills the job requires, not unrelated sensory, manual or speaking abilities. ^[3] The same question applies to screening: does the tool measure competence, or how closely the CV resembles those of people hired before?

What to ask the vendor before you buy

DSIT guidance recommends that buyers ask suppliers for evidence behind their claims, such as impact and risk assessments and data protection impact assessments, and check how the system performs across groups through bias audits and performance testing. ^[1]

The findings of audits carried out by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on developers of recruitment tools between August 2023 and May 2024 show why these questions matter. Some tools inferred a candidate’s gender and ethnicity from their name instead of asking, some allowed recruiters to filter candidates by protected characteristics, some collected more data than necessary, and at least one provider had launched its tool without formal accuracy testing. ^[2] The audits also found contracts that were vague about each party’s data protection role, providers keeping candidate data indefinitely, and some reusing data they had collected for other purposes. ^[2]

So put in the contract: each party’s data protection role, the retention period for candidate data, a ban on using it for any other purpose, the vendor’s obligation to notify you before changing the model or version, and your right to see the results of periodic bias audits. Asking the questions before you buy is not enough unless the answers become written commitments.

How to run a useful comparison before go-live

Build a set of hypothetical CVs matched for experience and qualifications, then change one element the role does not need in each version:

• CV layout: one column or two, table or prose.
• CV language: Arabic, English or a mix of both.
• How the qualification is written: in full or abbreviated, or the university name in Arabic or English.
• A gap in the work history, with or without a stated reason.

Record the results in a simple table: the pair number, the element changed, each version’s score, the difference, and whether the difference changed the pass decision. Decide in advance what size of difference triggers investigation, so that differences are not explained away after they appear.

If the score changes when an element unrelated to the job changes, you have found a source of bias to fix before go-live. Also review a sample of CVs the tool rejected during the trial and look for candidates who should have passed. DSIT recommends piloting the system before deployment with a diverse range of users and testing its performance in your own environment. ^[1]

Collecting data on candidate groups for wider analysis needs a lawful basis in your country. The ICO audits found that data inferred from names was too imprecise to monitor bias and was often processed without a lawful basis. ^[2]

Reading quality: an overlooked source of bias

Before a tool scores a CV, it extracts fields: job title, employer, start and end dates, qualification. If it misreads a particular type of CV, everyone who uses that format is disadvantaged in the same way. Compare the extracted fields with the original CV in a sample that reflects the layouts you actually receive.

Hypothetical example

A hypothetical organisation trialled a tool to screen Arabic and English CVs for a customer service role. The review found that the tool read employment dates consistently in English layouts but misread Arabic layouts that set dates right to left in a table, so it calculated shorter experience than candidates actually had. The team went back to the original CVs, asked the vendor to fix the reading, added a manual review route for any CV with low extraction quality, and reran the trial with the same set before go-live.

Human review that actually corrects

A member of staff clicking “approve” on a ranked list is not review. The ICO audits noted that some human reviews were informal and carried out by untrained staff, and recommended that tool scores should not be used for automated decisions where the tool was not designed for that, and that candidates should have a way to challenge decisions. ^[2]

Let the reviewer see the evidence behind the score, not just the score. Tell applicants that the tool is used and how they will be assessed, and set up a clear procedure for requesting an adjustment that does not harm the chances of those who use it, as the Department of Justice guidance recommends. ^[3] After go-live, repeat performance testing and bias audits regularly, because model performance can drift over time. ^[1]

Stop automated screening if review reveals material errors you cannot control, if a new version of the tool arrives without a documented test, or if you cannot explain why a candidate was rejected.

Applying this in the Gulf

The sources cited here are American and British; they are examples of good practice, not laws in force in the Gulf. Check the labour rules in your country, such as those issued by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development (HRSD) in Saudi Arabia and the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE) in the UAE, together with the personal data protection laws in force.

Where nationality is a legitimate criterion for the role under localisation programmes, make it an explicit, documented requirement applied by the team, not something the tool infers from a name or university. When buying, ask for documented testing and what changes between versions, and test the tool on the local languages and qualifications you actually receive, checking specifically that it does not give Arabic CVs lower scores than their English equivalents or read qualifications from local universities differently.

Conclusion

A screening tool is not fair simply because it is automated. Define the role criteria first, ask the vendor for evidence, test with matched CVs and Arabic layouts, and make sure human review can see the evidence and correct rejections.

A behavioural interview asks candidates to describe real situations from previous work and what they did in them. It rests on the premise that the best predictor of someone’s future behaviour on the job is their past behaviour in similar circumstances. ^[2]

It is normally used within a structured interview: an assessment method that measures job-related competencies, with standardised questioning and scoring for all candidates. ^[2] The CIPD describes it as a predefined set of questions asked in the same order of every candidate, with answers scored against pre-agreed criteria. ^[1]

In a meta-analytic review by Sackett and colleagues published in 2022, structured interviews showed the highest mean operational validity for predicting job performance of the selection procedures reviewed, at 0.42, against 0.31 for cognitive ability tests, with a relatively wide spread around that mean across studies. ^[4] In other words, the benefit comes from how well the interview is built, not from simply calling it behavioural.

How do behavioural and situational questions differ?

The US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guide distinguishes two question types in a structured interview: ^[2]

• Behavioural question: asks about actual past behaviour, for example: “Describe a situation in which you dealt with people who were difficult, hostile or distressed.”
• Situational question: presents a realistic job scenario and asks how the candidate would handle it, on the premise that intentions are closely related to actual behaviour.

General questions such as “what are your strengths?” invite rehearsed answers and point to no specific competency. The CIPD notes that skill-based assessments have been found to predict job performance better than traditional approaches such as unstructured interviews. ^[1] A situational question can be a practical alternative when a candidate lacks the previous experience needed to ask about similar past situations.

How do you build a competency-based behavioural interview?

Start from job analysis, not a ready-made question bank: review the job’s tasks and required competencies and ask subject-matter experts to confirm them. Then select the competencies the interview will measure; structured interviews typically assess 4 to 6 competencies unless the job is unique or high-level. ^[2]

Questions are written to draw out the three elements summarised by the STAR model: Situation or Task, Action and Result. ^[2] Each question has follow-up probes prepared in advance, and a rating scale of typically 3 to 7 levels, with example answers for each level agreed by the experts. ^[2]

Ready-to-use behavioural interview questions by competency

The questions below are adaptable templates, each tied to a single competency so that scores do not blur together:

Probes are open, such as: what was your role? what was the outcome? would you do anything differently? They must not signal the desired answer. ^[2]

How do you score answers with a behavioural scale?

A good scale describes each level with behaviour that can be observed in the answer. In an example published by OPM for the interpersonal skills competency, the scale runs from 1 to 5 and its examples rise with the difficulty of the situation: from situations with little or no tension to highly charged ones, such as defusing an emotionally charged meeting with external stakeholders. ^[3]

Hypothetical example

A panel is assessing a candidate for a customer service supervisor role on problem solving. The candidate first says: “We had delays in responses and we fixed them.” When asked about their own role, they explain that they analysed two weeks of request logs, found that most delays came from one type of request, proposed a standard reply template and tracked response times after it was introduced.

The first answer alone sits at level 2; after probing it merits 4 or 5, depending on whether they measured the impact and prevented recurrence. This is where probes earn their place.

How should you run the interview on the day?

• Same questions, same order: each interviewer asks only their assigned questions, and all candidates are treated the same. ^[2]
• A panel, not a single interviewer: the CIPD recommends panels, citing research that multiple interviewers in one interview give fairer and more accurate results than several single-interviewer interviews. ^[1]
• Descriptive notes: notes summarise what was said, without judgements about the candidate or their personality, and are detailed enough to justify the rating, because they may be reviewed on appeal. ^[2]
• Score alone, then discuss: each member scores independently before discussion, to avoid being swayed by others, particularly the most senior person present. ^[1]
• Candidate experience: tell candidates what to expect, avoid an unnecessarily long process, follow up promptly with feedback, and ask whether they need reasonable adjustments. ^[1]

Which rater errors spoil the decision?

The OPM guide warns against recurring rater errors: ^[2]

• Relying on first impressions or superficial factors.
• Candidate-order effects, where a candidate is judged against the previous one rather than the scale.
• “Similar to me”, favouring people who resemble the interviewer.
• The halo effect: letting the rating on one competency influence the others.
• Leniency or strictness, or central tendency, putting every score in the middle of the scale.

The practical remedy is to stick to the scale and its examples, and rate each competency separately from the written notes.

What should you not ask? Gulf considerations

The OPM guide says interviewers should never ask about or comment on age, sex, race, national origin, religion, marital or family status, disability or health status, or any other job-irrelevant factor. ^[2] In the Gulf, the rules differ by country:

• UAE: Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on regulating labour relations prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, nationality, social origin or disability that would weaken equal opportunities in obtaining or keeping a job. The law applies to the private sector and excludes, among others, employees of federal and local government entities, members of the armed forces, police and security services, and domestic workers. ^[5]
• Saudi Arabia: Article 3 of the Labor Law states that citizens are equal in the right to work without discrimination based on sex, disability, age or any other form, whether during work, in recruitment or in job advertisements. ^[6]

In other GCC states, and in government bodies covered by their own HR laws, refer to the applicable legislation.

Conclusion

A behavioural interview is a powerful tool when it is built with discipline: competencies from job analysis, standard STAR-based questions, a scale with behavioural examples, and a panel that scores independently before discussing. Start with one frequently recruited role, build a complete interview guide for it, then roll it out after a trial.