If you haven’t learned that hiring developers is like balancing above a pool with sharks on your left side and electric eels on the right, then consider these two experiences when it comes to cheating and proctored tests:

Evidence #1

In high-volume recruiting situations, I have seen people do the actual tech assessments and then the live interviews who weren’t the actual person applying for the job. So it is not uncommon to hire someone to take tests for you. – Nathan Sutter, VP of Software Engineering at CoderPad

Evidence #2

On the one hand, you have to maintain the integrity of your hiring process by ensuring that only the best candidates make it through – preventing cheaters and deceivers from making it to the later stages of your interview process. Or, god forbid, from getting hired in the first place.

If candidates think they can easily game your technical assessments, the bad ones will and the good ones won’t even try – why should they if the cheaters are just going to get away with their cheating?

Being soft on cheating can damage your company’s image with candidates.

On the other hand, candidates hate a terrible hiring process. As evidence #2 demonstrates above, they won’t be afraid to share it with every other candidate looking your company up on Reddit or Glassdoor.

That means that if your anti-cheating measures come across as too harsh, you’ll struggle with getting enough candidates to take your technical exams because anyone with internet access will quickly find out what a hard ass you are.

Simply put, going too far in either direction – being too hard or too soft on potential cheating – can cost you suitable candidates.

Proctoring is one of those anti-cheat measures that require careful consideration. Used correctly, it can ensure cheaters are quickly removed from your candidate pool, but if used incorrectly candidates will think that distrust is an attribute that permeates your entire organization.

So, how do you address your cheating concerns while also addressing concerns candidates have about proctoring? Let’s find out.

Proctoring 101

Proctoring can take many forms, but it boils down to having a candidate’ss actions and behavior monitored while they take a test.

We can break it down to human-based and AI-based.

In human-based proctoring, a candidate can go to a testing center and submit to a series of anti-cheating security procedures,, including being watched by a certified exam proctor. This is common for a lot of tests for technical certifications. Alternatively, there can be online test proctoring, where an exam proctor watches the candidate over a video camera while the candidate takes a test.

In AI-based proctoring, the candidate is recorded by a video platform, and the video feed is then analyzed by an AI program to identify suspicious behaviors and signs of cheating.

Whether it’s AI or human-based, it all boils down to one principle: you’re concerned enough about cheating that you want candidates to be monitored while they take their test.

Candidate concerns with proctoring

As our second piece of evidence above suggests, candidates have several concerns about proctoring that can reduce the chances that they take your proctored technical assessments:

• Privacy concerns: Being watched while trying to focus can be disconcerting. Being watched while you are in the “privacy” of your own home can be downright uncomfortable. You don’t know anything about the person proctoring you, or what recording footage is being kept for reasons unrelated to the test.
• Technical difficulties: Highlighted in the Reddit screenshot above, this can frustrate users to the point of taking baseball bats to printers (okay, maybe it’s not “PC load letter” level frustration, but you get the point). Especially when a proctor invalidates a candidate’s test for “suspicious behavior” when a technical issue caused it.
• Proctor difficulties: Proctors are humans, and humans make mistakes. Some proctors are good at what they do and others not so much. Candidates will suffer for the latter.
• Stress and anxiety for candidates: Even when candidates are confident in their skills or have no intention to cheat, knowing that they’re going to be watched the entire time they take a test can still add to test-taking anxiety. 
• Assumption of distrust: Most candidates won’t cheat. Proctoring assumes you don’t trust all your candidates to be completely honest. While this is usually justified, it can still turn candidates off from taking a proctored test.

Proctoring best practices: Where to begin

It’s essential for companies to run a fair, hiring process consistent process – and proctoring is often a key part of that. Good candidates will want to know that they’re participating in a process where the real people with the best skills are the ones being hired. – Amanda Richardson, CEO at CoderPad

The most essential best practice you can implement in your proctoring process is transparency and communicating regularly with your candidates. That means addressing candidate concerns head-on and leaving no surprises regarding the proctoring process.

Addressing candidate concerns

First and foremost, explain why you’re utilizing proctoring in your tests. For most companies, it’s because you want to ensure the integrity of the test so that all candidates get a fair shot at the job. 

For example, you can tell your candidates that proctoring ensures that every candidate takes the test under the same controlled conditions, minimizing the influence of people who can afford to pay others to take the test for them.

This creates a level playing field for all applicants, reducing advantages or disadvantages based on background or circumstance. Candidates respect fair processes that ensure that only those with the appropriate skills move on to later rounds of the interview.

In addition to explaining why you use proctoring, consider communicating the following.

Acknowledge the stress of a proctored testing process 

It may not seem like much, but simply acknowledging a stressful situation can help alleviate stress. I’m sure you remember what it’s like to go through a hiring process for a job you want – use that experience to empathize with your candidates.

Provide reassurance that your proctoring isn’t out there to catch their coding mistakes or judge their programming skills – it’s simply a means to ensure the integrity of the test.

Offer flexibility in the testing process

One of the most significant downsides of in-person proctoring is that it relies on the scheduling and location of the proctor. Requiring candidates to travel when their means of transportation are limited can introduce an aspect of unfairness to the process. Likewise, requiring candidates to take the test at certain times of the day limits who can take the test – college students will have vastly different schedules from working adults and parents.

So, you’ll want to offer flexibility in scheduling to accommodate different time zones and personal circumstances. For this reason,, it may be a good idea to stick with online human-based proctoring or AI-based proctoring, which can (usually) be done any time of the day. 

Explain the proctoring process

To reduce uncomfortable surprises, make sure candidates have not just a thorough understanding of the testing process but of what your proctoring entails as well.

Walk them through the process from beginning to end. List all the rules and procedures, as well as what to do and not do while they’re taking the test. The candidates’ expectations should be clear before they start the test.

This information should be included in any communications about the test sent out to the candidate, including the invite. If you’re using a testing platform, it’s also a good idea to ensure the proctoring process and any rules are documented and displayed to the candidate before they take the test.

And don’t forget to make sure the candidate has a place to ask questions about the proctoring process! Whether it is you or the support department for the testing platform, make sure there is a place where you can clear up any confusion the candidate may have about the process.

Respect candidate privacy

Candidates are already making a lot of sacrifices when submitting to proctoring, but their privacy should not be one of them.

Ensure data security and confidentiality

At a minimum, organizations should comply with their country’s relevant data protection laws, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), or any other regional laws. 

Beyond legal compliance, it’s essential to implement stringent data security measures to safeguard candidate data. This includes encryption of sensitive data (both at rest and in transit), regular security audits, multi-factor authentication (MFA) for access to proctoring platforms, and explicit data storage and retention policies.

Confidentiality is critical to building trust with candidates. Only authorized personnel should have access to proctoring data, which should not be used for purposes beyond what the candidate has consented to (e.g., sharing proctoring data with third parties without explicit consent would be a breach). 

Creating transparency around how candidate data is handled can foster trust and reduce concerns about surveillance and privacy.

Use minimal and non-invasive proctoring methods whenever possible

While ensuring integrity in assessments is important, organizations should prioritize using proctoring methods that are as minimally invasive as possible to respect candidates’ privacy. 

This could involve selecting technologies that limit excessive monitoring, such as avoiding unnecessary screen recording or location tracking.

Non-invasive approaches also mean choosing methods that balance security with user comfort. For example, AI-based flagging systems can reduce the need for constant human monitoring, which candidates may perceive as overly intrusive. By reducing the perceived invasiveness, organizations will likely gain greater candidate acceptance of your proctoring process.

Use proctoring data responsibly and with consideration for candidate context

You’ll only create an atmosphere of distrust amongst your applicant pool if you assume every flagged candidate is a cheater. Understanding the context of suspicious behaviors is important before you eliminate candidates.

For instance, certain actions that might appear suspicious, such as looking away from the screen or moving in the chair, could have perfectly valid explanations like a candidate working in a shared space or dealing with distractions. 

That’s not just a concern with human-based proctoring, either. While AI automation can make your testing process more accessible, over-reliance on AI-generated flags without contextual review can unfairly penalize candidates, leading to biased decisions.

Review the footage or reports of any flagged behavior. You can probably safely remove the candidate from the pool if the cheating is obvious. However, if the suspicious behavior wasn’t clear cut, it’s a good idea to inform that candidate that they were flagged and allow them to explain themselves.

Ensure technical readiness

Technical issues will absolutely ruin a candidate’s testing experience. 

Obviously, technical issues happen, and they can be caused by everything from an unfamiliarity with the testing platform to having a non-standard technical setup.

To prevent both of those things from happening, follow these tips.

Offer a test run or practice session

If possible, allow the candidates to do a “test run” of your testing platform, including the proctoring portion,. This will help highlight technical issues well before the test time, giving you and the candidate enough time to fix them before the actual test starts.

Also, be sure to provide proctoring instructions right before the interview to keep them fresh in the candidate’s mind.

Provide a contact for technical support and troubleshooting

This should already be built in if you’re using a proctoring or testing platform. If you’re using some other means of proctoring, make sure you have someone responsible for helping candidates with their technical issues, and make sure their contact information is readily available to the candidate. 

Either way, it should be evident to the candidate how they can get help for technical issues.

Choose your testing platform wisely

If you’re using a testing platform, try it out yourself first. Look at reviews from test takers. Ideally, the proctoring process will support a great candidate experience and be as minimally invasive as possible.

A good proctoring and testing platform should be accessible for various technical setups and available to various test-taking environments. Otherwise, you may end up disadvantaging specific candidates.

Leave ghosting to the haunted houses

When using proctoring technology during technical assessments, maintaining communication with candidates after the test is just as crucial as during it. 

Candidates appreciate feedback on their performance and reassurance that their privacy and data were respected. Avoid ghosting candidates after proctored tests to foster a positive candidate experience and strengthen your hiring reputation.

Provide constructive feedback post-proctoring

Give automated feedback

Even with proctored exams, offering candidates automated feedback on their performance is helpful. Sharing an objective breakdown of their technical assessment allows them to understand how they performed without introducing bias from human reviewers.

For instance, after a proctored coding test, provide candidates with information such as code accuracy, efficiency, and any flagged issues (such as unpermitted use of external resources). This reassures candidates that their work was evaluated fairly and respects the transparency expected in your hiring practices.

Get candidate feedback on the proctoring process

Candidates should be able to give feedback specifically on the proctoring aspect of their test experience. Offering a feedback form focused on how comfortable they were with the proctoring technology, privacy concerns, or technical difficulties shows a commitment to improving the candidate experience.

If a dedicated feedback form is too time-consuming, even just asking about the process in a post-test follow-up email would be sufficient. It is important to obtain the feedback and use it to make appropriate adjustments to your process.

Continuous improvement in proctoring

Effective proctoring requires ongoing refinement to adapt to new technologies, industry standards, and candidate expectations. Without continuous improvement, the proctoring process could become outdated or even counterproductive.

Gather proctoring-specific feedback

After proctored assessments, ask candidates directly about their experience with the proctoring process. 

This data can reveal where improvements are needed, such as reducing system lag, improving test instructions, or addressing privacy concerns. Candidates will appreciate knowing their input could make future assessments smoother and more comfortable for others.

In other words, regular feedback on proctoring allows your organization to better understand where the process may unintentionally increase candidate stress or discomfort, thus giving actionable insights for improvement.

Review and update proctoring policies regularly

As with any hiring technology, proctoring tools and policies should be regularly reviewed to align with legal requirements and industry best practices. 

It’s important to consider whether your proctoring methods are overly invasive for the assessed role. For instance, a senior developer may expect a more hands-off approach, while junior candidates might benefit from structured oversight to ensure test integrity.

Consider cultural sensitivity

Candidates from different cultural backgrounds may have varying expectations around privacy and monitoring. Tailoring the level of proctoring based on geographic location or cultural norms can reduce friction in the hiring process, ensuring that all candidates feel respected.

Where do you go from here?

At CoderPad, we believe that maintaining authenticity, fostering trust, and designing an interview process that progressively evaluates depth, breadth, communication, and collaboration are the most effective ways to prevent cheating.

Proctoring has its place in effective cheat prevention – it is a tool to help you foster trust and ensure fairness and integrity by focusing on the candidate experience. 

If you’re interested in implementing a fair, easy-to-use AI-based proctoring tool, CoderPad has you covered. 

Our webcam proctoring feature prompts candidates to activate their webcam before starting a test. 

If (and only if) they accept, periodic snapshots are captured throughout the test and analyzed by our AI software. We can identify any suspicious behavior and, if necessary, add automatic alerts to the candidate’s report.

Recruiters also gain access to a detailed proctoring report. They can review alerts and the corresponding captured snapshots for three patterns:

• No face detected — the candidate has left the room, for example.
• Multiple faces detected — the candidate is using unauthorized assistance.
• A different face is detected — the candidate is having someone else take the test for them.

Note: when using this feature in your tests, you’ll see an additional option on the “Data retention” page to define how long webcam screenshots are stored and available for review. To comply with GDPR, this data retention period is capped at 90 days.

As with other test settings, webcam proctoring can be activated per-test and per-team.

Click here to learn more about our proctoring tool and other cheating prevention measures.

Some of this article written with the assistance of ChatGPT.