Our method
Built on research, not on hunches
Each part of Round Zero rests on published research about how people get better at things and how interviews are judged. This page says which research, what it found, and where our own choices start.
The practice loop
A practice round runs in the same order every time. Each step has a reason.
Say it out loud
You answer out loud, the way you will on the day, not in your head.
Among musicians, the level people reached tracked how much deliberate practice they had done: focused, effortful work on specific weaknesses, with feedback, rather than simply time spent playing. Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer (1993)
One fix, not ten
After each answer you get the one change most worth making, about the answer, not about you.
Across 607 effect sizes, feedback helped performance on average, but about a third of feedback interventions made performance worse, especially when the feedback drew attention to the person rather than the task. Kluger and DeNisi (1996)
Take Two
Answer the same question again with the fix, so you hear yourself get it right.
Bandura proposed that performance accomplishments, succeeding at the thing yourself, are the most dependable source of self-efficacy, the belief that you can do it. Bandura (1977)
Spaced reps
Come back to a question over several days instead of drilling it all in one night.
Across hundreds of experiments, spreading practice out over time led to better long-term recall than the same amount of practice packed together. Cepeda et al. (2006)
Coming up
Give your interview a date and turn the night before into if-then steps: if I blank, then I...
A meta-analysis of 94 independent tests found that if-then plans had a medium-to-large effect on reaching goals (d = .65). Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006)
How scoring works
Your answers are scored the way a structured interview is: the same questions, judged against the same written levels.
Scored on anchored rubrics
Every question is scored against the same written levels, the way a structured interview is.
Reviewing 85 years of research, structured interviews predicted job performance better than unstructured ones. Schmidt and Hunter (1998)
Levels described as behaviour
Each level says what an answer at that level sounds like, so a score points at something you can hear.
Smith and Kendall built rating scales whose levels are anchored by concrete examples of behaviour, to make ratings less ambiguous. Smith and Kendall (1963)
Quotes from your own words
Feedback quotes what you actually said, so you can check every point against your answer and argue with it.
We check our own scoring
An AI scorer can give the same answer a different score on a different run. We re-score the same answers to measure how often that happens.
- Same answer, scored twice: how often the score matches
- 94% within 5 points
- Average gap between two scores of one answer
- 2.8 points
- Answers re-scored so far
- 3,400+
Who trains this way
The papers are not decoration. Researchers mapped these methods, and hiring teams still use versions of them. Member stories only ship with written consent.
From the researchSay it out loud
“Getting better is not about logging hours. It is about focused practice on a specific weakness, with feedback, repeated until the hard part moves.”
K. Anders Ericsson
Psychologist, deliberate practice research
Summarised from Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer (1993) on deliberate practice.
From the researchOne fix, not ten
“Feedback helps when it points at the task. It often hurts when it points at the person. One clear fix beats a pile of judgment.”
Avraham Kluger and Angelo DeNisi
Feedback intervention researchers
Summarised from Kluger and DeNisi (1996) meta-analysis on feedback interventions.
From the researchTake Two
“The strongest way to believe you can do something is to succeed at it yourself, not to watch someone else or get pep talks.”
Albert Bandura
Psychologist, self-efficacy research
Summarised from Bandura (1977) on performance accomplishments as a source of self-efficacy.
From the researchSpaced reps
“Spreading practice across days beats cramming the same amount into one night when you need to remember it later.”
Nicholas Cepeda and colleagues
Learning scientists, spaced practice
Summarised from Cepeda et al. (2006) on distributed practice.
From the researchComing up
“People who decide in advance, if X happens then I will do Y, follow through on hard goals more often than people who only set the goal.”
Peter Gollwitzer and Paschal Sheeran
Researchers on if-then planning
Summarised from Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) on implementation intentions.
In practiceScored on anchored rubrics
“The same questions, scored the same way, beat unstructured chat when you are trying to predict who will do the job well.”
Laszlo Bock
Former SVP of People Operations, Google
Summarised from Work Rules! and Google re:Work guidance on structured interviewing.
In practicePresence
“Employers keep naming communication among the competencies they want in people who are ready for work: clear, specific, and able to listen.”
NACE career readiness work
Employer competency framework
Summarised from NACE Career Readiness Competencies (2021).
From the researchCareer capital
“What travels with you between jobs is knowing why you move, knowing how to do the work, and knowing whom to call.”
Robert DeFillippi and Michael Arthur
Career researchers
Summarised from DeFillippi and Arthur (1994) on knowing-why, knowing-how and knowing-whom.
From the researchAdaptability
“People handle career change better when they look ahead, take ownership, stay curious about options, and trust they can act.”
Mark Savickas and Erik Porfeli
Career adaptability researchers
Summarised from Savickas and Porfeli (2012) on career adapt-abilities.
The career score
Your career score has four parts. The research supports each part. Adding them up into one score is our own choice, not something any of these studies did.
Presence
Six skills heard in your recent reps: clear answers, concrete proof, thinking live, self-advocacy, active listening and steady presence.
NACE lists communication among the competencies employers look for in a career-ready workforce. NACE Career Readiness Competencies
Adaptability
How ready you feel to handle change, from our own short check-in once a month.
Career adaptability research describes four resources for handling career change: concern, control, curiosity and confidence. Savickas and Porfeli (2012)
The adaptability check-in is our own short set of questions, inspired by this research. It is not the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale.
Career capital
Proof of what you can do, the people you have talked to, and a clear direction ahead.
DeFillippi and Arthur describe three kinds of career competence that move with a person between employers: knowing why, knowing how and knowing whom. DeFillippi and Arthur (1994)
Follow-through
Whether you prepare before the moments that matter and report back on how they went.
A meta-analysis of 94 independent tests found that if-then plans had a medium-to-large effect on reaching goals (d = .65). Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006)
What we do not claim
- We did not run these studies. We read them and built on them. The findings are theirs, in the settings they studied, which were not Round Zero.
- We have not shown that Round Zero gets anyone a job. Practice helps you walk in prepared. Who gets hired depends on much more than one interview.
- The career score is ours. Each part rests on research; the way they add up is a choice we made and will change if it stops being useful.
- The adaptability check-in is our own short set of questions. It is not a published, tested scale.
- Our scoring is not perfect, which is why we measure how stable it is and will publish the numbers rather than ask you to take it on trust.
References
- Smith, P. C., and Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 149-155. doi.org/10.1037/h0047060
- Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
- Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., and Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406. doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
- DeFillippi, R. J., and Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency-based perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(4), 307-324. doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150403
- Kluger, A. N., and DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
- Schmidt, F. L., and Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
- Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., and Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354-380. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
- Gollwitzer, P. M., and Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
- Savickas, M. L., and Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 661-673. doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011
- National Association of Colleges and Employers (2021). Career readiness: Competencies for a career-ready workforce. NACE. www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined/
Try one round
Answer a question out loud, get one fix, and take it again. No card required.
Start a free mock interview