In the competitive market of candidate metrics, it’s absolutely critical to enhance the candidate experience throughout the entire application process. With the importance of candidate experience metrics and recruitment metrics rising, you simply cannot afford to lose the talent that you’ve spent time and money attracting.
This might sound straightforward, but abandonment rate, especially the application drop-off rate and candidate drop-off rate, is a significant concern. Many companies remain oblivious to where, when, and why candidates abandon their application processes.
Let’s initiate the discussion with recruitment metrics, followed by a dive into how we can apply them to enhance your broader talent acquisition journey.
Overall candidate abandonment rate = number of candidates still in the process at shortlist stage, minus the total number of candidates who landed on your careers page, divided by that total number again. Or:
At its core, monitoring abandonment rate or application drop-off rate is pivotal. It acts as a generalized diagnostic tool that indicates the efficiency of your recruitment process.
Imagine you had 100 visitors on your careers (or job ad) page, but only 10 make it to your shortlist. That’s a staggering 90% loss of your potential talent pool at various stages.
This leads to a crucial inquiry: How can one gauge the candidate drop-off rate at each phase of the application process?
Assuming you had 100 visitors to your careers page, and only 20 completed the primary application form, it implies an 80% candidate drop-off right at the outset.
This isn’t ideal, but now you have a clearer picture. You can now scrutinize the page to identify potential barriers that deter candidates from applying. Questions to consider might include:
- Is the page too long?
- Does it have too much text?
- Is the ‘apply’ button clearly shown?
- Is the form too long, requiring too much information to fill out?
- Are your perks/EVP attributes clearly displayed?
Without assessing each stage independently, it’s challenging to ascertain why candidates aren’t persisting.
To emphasize, alongside the overall abandonment rate, it’s imperative to measure the candidate drop-off rate at each step of your talent acquisition process. The subsequent section can guide your focus.
Where, when, and why do candidates abandon the application process?
It’s a general notion that an elongated application and interview process results in a higher candidate drop-off rate. However, this doesn’t provide actionable insights. To rectify issues, you need precise, localized data to pinpoint and address the bottlenecks.
Recent data from a 2022 Aptitude Research report on pivotal interviewing trends disclosed that candidates tend to abandon the process at these stages:
- 22% of candidates drop out at the application stage
- 24% at the screening stage
- 25% at the interview stage
- 18% at the assessment stage
- 9% at the offer stage
These statistics are invaluable. By auditing your recruitment process against these benchmarks, weak areas become evident.
For instance, a lengthy, multi-step interview might seem ideal for assessing cultural fit, but if it’s cumbersome for candidates and requires coordination among several stakeholders, it might be counterproductive.
The interview stage witnesses the highest application drop-off rate, with 25% of candidates opting out. This doesn’t come as a surprise, given the lengthy and often ineffective nature of many interview processes. Aptitude Research indicates that 33% of companies lack confidence in their interviewing capabilities, and 50% believe they’ve lost potential hires due to subpar interviews.
When surveying HR and TA leaders about their primary interviewing challenges, the responses included:
- Our interview process is too long (52%)
- We make candidates go through too many interviews (39%)
- Out interview process is inconsistent (38%)
- We don’t use objective data to drive decisions (32%)
- We have bias in the interview process (21%)
The lack of objective data is a glaring issue. Nearly a third of companies base their interview and application procedures on assumptions rather than concrete data, leading to inefficiencies.
Yet, 68% of companies admitted to not making any enhancements to the candidate experience this year. So, how many are genuinely evaluating their talent acquisition journey to identify shortcomings?
That’s why this post emphasizes the candidate abandonment rate. It’s a straightforward metric that reflects the vitality of your application process. It’s arguably simpler to measure compared to other intricate recruitment metrics, like quality-of-hire. As the adage goes, “What gets measured, gets managed.”
Start here today, and see what you learn.
(P.S. Sapia’s Ai Smart Chat Interviewer combines the first four stages of your process – application, screening, interviewing, and assessment – together, resulting in an application process that can secure top talent in as little as 24 hours.
Because it’s a chat-based interview with a smart little AI, your team doesn’t need to do anything – everyone who applies gets an interview, immediately. That maximizes your talent pool right from the get-go.
What’s more, our candidate dropout rate is just 15%, on average. That means that 85% of your starting talent pool will stick around.
Why do our candidates stick around? More than 90% of them love the experience. See how we can help you here, today.)
Related
Blog
Neuroinclusion by design. Not by exception.
Why neuroinclusion can’t be a retrofit and how Sapia.ai is building a better experience for every candidate.
In the past, if you were neurodivergent and applying for a job, you were often asked to disclose your diagnosis to get a basic accommodation – extra time on a test, maybe the option to skip a task. That disclosure often came with risk: of judgment, of stigma, or just being seen as different.
This wasn’t inclusion. It was bureaucracy. And it made neurodiverse candidates carry the burden of fitting in.
We’ve come a long way, but we’re not there yet.
Shifting from retrofits to inclusive-by-design
Over the last two decades, hiring practices have slowly moved away from reactive accommodations toward proactive, human-centric design. Leading employers began experimenting with:
- Sharing interview questions in advance
- Replacing group exercises with structured simulations
- Offering a variety of assessment formats
- Co-designing assessments with neurodiverse candidates
But even these advances have often been limited in scope, applied to special hiring programs or specific roles. Neurodiverse talent still encounters systems built for neurotypical profiles, with limited flexibility and a heavy dose of social performance pressure.
Hiring needs to look different.
Insight 1: The next frontier of hiring equity is universal design
Truly inclusive hiring doesn’t rely on diagnosis or disclosure. It doesn’t just give a select few special treatment. It’s about removing friction for everyone, especially those who’ve historically been excluded.
That’s why Sapia.ai was built with universal design principles from day one.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:
- No time limits — Candidates answer at their own pace
- No pressure to perform — It’s a conversation, not a spotlight
- No video, no group tasks — Just structured, 1:1 chat-based interviews
- Built-in coaching — Everyone gets personalised feedback
It’s not a workaround. It’s a rework.
Insight 2: Not all “friendly” methods are inclusive
We tend to assume that social or “casual” interview formats make people comfortable. But for many neurodiverse individuals, icebreakers, group exercises, and informal chats are the problem, not the solution.
When we asked 6,000 neurodiverse candidates about their experience using Sapia.ai’s chat-based interview, they told us:
“It felt very 1:1 and trustworthy… I had time to fully think about my answers.”
“It was less anxiety-inducing than video interviews.”
“I like that all applicants get initial interviews which ensures an unbiased and fair way to weigh-up candidates.”
Insight 3: Prediction ≠ Inclusion
Some AI systems claim to infer skills or fit from resumes or behavioural data. But if the training data is biased or the experience itself is exclusionary, you’re just replicating the same inequity with more speed and scale.
Inclusion means seeing people for who they are, not who they resemble in your data set.
At Sapia.ai, every interaction is transparent, explainable, and scientifically validated. We use structured, fair assessments that work for all brains, not just neurotypical ones.
Where to from here?
Neurodiversity is rising in both awareness and representation. However, inclusion won’t scale unless the systems behind hiring change as well.
That’s why we built a platform that:
- Doesn’t rely on disclosure
- Removes ambiguity and pressure
- Creates space for everyone to shine
- Measures what matters, fairly
Sapia.ai is already powering inclusive, structured, and scalable hiring for global employers like BT Group, Costa Coffee and Concentrix. Want to see how your hiring process can be more inclusive for neurodivergent individuals? Let’s chat.
Blog
Skills Measurement vs Skills Inference – What’s the Difference and Why Does It Matter?
There’s growing interest in AI-driven tools that infer skills from CVs, LinkedIn profiles, and other passive data sources. These systems claim to map someone’s capability based on the words they use, the jobs they’ve held, and patterns derived from millions of similar profiles. In theory, it’s efficient. But when inference becomes the primary basis for hiring or promotion, we need to scrutinise what’s actually being measured and what’s not.
Let’s be clear: the technology isn’t the problem. Modern inference engines use advanced natural language processing, embeddings, and knowledge graphs. The science behind them is genuinely impressive. And when they’re used alongside richer sources of data, such as internal project contributions, validated assessments, or behavioural evidence, they can offer valuable insight for workforce planning and development.
But we need to separate the two ideas:
- Skills Measurement: Directly observing or quantifying a skill based on evidence of actual performance.
- Skills Inference: Estimating the likelihood that someone has a skill, based on indirect signals or patterns in their data.
The risk lies in conflating the two.
The Problem Isn’t Inference of Skills. It’s the Data Feeding It
CVs and LinkedIn profiles are riddled with bias, inconsistency, and omission. They’re self-authored, unverified, and often written strategically – for example, to enhance certain experiences or downplay others in response to a job ad.
And different groups represent themselves in different ways. Ahuja (2024) showed, for example, that male MBA graduates in India tend to self-promote more than their female peers. Something as simple as a longer LinkedIn ‘About’ section becomes a proxy for perceived competence.
Job titles are vague. Skill descriptions vary. Proficiency is rarely signposted. Even where systems draw on internal performance data, the quality is often questionable. Ratings tend to cluster (remember the year everyone got a ‘3’ at your org?) and can often reflect manager bias or company culture more than actual output.
Sophisticated ≠ Objective
The most advanced skill inference platforms use layered data: open web sources like job ads and bios, public databases like O*NET and ESCO, internal frameworks, even anonymised behavioural signals from platform users. This breadth gives a more complete picture, and the models powering it are undeniably sophisticated.
But sophistication doesn’t equal accuracy.
These systems rely heavily on proxies and correlations, rather than observed behaviour. They estimate presence, not proficiency. And when used in high-stakes decisions, that distinction matters.
Transparency (or Lack Thereof)
In many inference systems, it’s hard to trace where a skill came from. Was it picked up from a keyword? Assumed from a job title? Correlated with others in similar roles? The logic is rarely visible, and that’s a problem, especially when decisions based on these inferences affect access to jobs, development, or promotion.
Presence ≠ Proficiency
Inferred skills suggest someone might have a capability. But hiring isn’t about possibility. It’s about evidence of capability. Saying you’ve led a team isn’t the same as doing it well. Collecting or observing actual examples of behaviour allows you to evaluate someone’s true competence at a claimed skill.
Some platforms try to infer proficiency, too, but this is still inference, not measurement. No matter how smart the model, it’s still drawing conclusions from indirect data.
By contrast, validated assessments like structured interviews, simulations, and psychometric tools are designed to measure. They observe behaviour against defined criteria, use consistent scoring frameworks (like Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales, or BARS), and provide a transparent, defensible basis for decision-making. In doing this, the level or proficiency of a skill can be placed on a properly calibrated scale.
But here’s the thing: we don’t have to choose one over the other.
A Smarter Way Forward: The Hybrid Model
The real opportunity lies in combining the rigour of measurement with the scalability of inference.
Start with measurement
Define the skills that matter. Use structured tools to capture behavioural evidence. Set a clear standard for what good looks like. For example, define Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) when assessing interviews for skills. Using a framework like Sapia.ai’s Competency Framework is critical for defining what you want to measure.
Layer in inference
Apply AI to scale scoring, add contextual nuance, and detect deeper patterns that human assessors might miss, especially when reviewing large volumes of data.
Anchor the whole system in transparency and validation
Ensure people understand how inferences are made by providing clear explanations. Continuously test for fairness. Keep human oversight in the loop, especially where the stakes are high. More information on ensuring AI systems are transparent can be found in this paper.
This hybrid model respects the strengths and limits of both approaches. It recognises that AI can’t replace human judgement, but it can enhance it. That inference can extend reach, but only measurement can give you higher confidence in the results.
The Bottom Line
Inference can support and guide, but only measurement can prove. And when people’s futures are on the line, proof should always win.
References
Ahuja, A. (2024). LinkedIn profile analysis reveals gender-based differences in self-presentation among Indian MBA graduates. Journal of Business and Psychology.
Blog
Making Healthcare Hiring Human with Ethical AI
Hiring for care is unlike any other sector. Recruiters are looking for people who can bring empathy, resilience, and energy to the most demanding human roles. Whether it’s dental care, mental health, or aged care, new hires are charged with looking after others when they’re most vulnerable. The stakes are high.
Hiring for care is exactly where leveraging ethical AI can make the biggest impact.
Hiring for the traits that matter
The best carers don’t always have the best CVs.
That’s why our chat-based AI interview doesn’t screen for qualifications. It screens for the the skills that matter when caring for others. The traits that define a brilliant care worker, things like:
Empathy, Self-awareness, Accountability, Teamwork, and Energy.
The best way to uncover these traits is through structured behavioural science, delivered through an experience that allows candidates to open up. Giving candidates space to give real-life, open-text answers. With no time pressure or video stress. Then, our AI picks up the signals that matter, free from any demographic data or bias-inducing signals.
Candidates’ answers to our structured interview questions aren’t simply ticking boxes. They’re a window into how someone shows up under pressure. And they’re helping leading care organisations hire people who belong in care and those who stay.
Inclusion, built in
Inclusivity should be a core foundation of any talent assessment, and it’s a fundamental requirement for hirers in the care industry.
When healthcare hirers use chat-based AI interviews, designed to be inclusive for all groups, candidates complete their interviews when and where they choose, without the bias traps of face-to-face or phone screening. There are no accents to judge, no assumptions, just their words and their story.
And it works:
- 91.8% of carer candidates complete their interviews
- Carer candidates report 9/10 Candidate Satisfaction with their interview experience
- 80% of candidates would recommend others to apply
- Every candidate receives personalised feedback, regardless of the outcome
Drop-offs are reduced, and engagement & employer brand advocacy go up. Building a brand that candidates want to work for includes providing a hiring experience that candidates want to complete.
Real outcomes in care hiring
Our smart chat already works for some of the most respected names in healthcare and community services. Here’s a sample of the outcomes that are possible by leveraging ethical AI, a validated scientific assessment, wrapped in an experience that candidates love:
Anglicare – a leading provider of aged care services
- Time-to-offer dropped from 40+ days to just 14
- Candidate pool grew by 30%
- Turnover dropped by 63%
Abano Healthcare – Australasia’s largest dental support organisation
- 1,213 recruiter hours saved in the first month (67 hours per individual hiring team member)
- $25,000 saved in screening and interviewing time
Berry Street – a not for profit family & child services organisation
- Time-to-hire down from 22 to 7 days
- 95.4% of candidates completed their chat interviews
A smarter way to hire
The case study tells the full story of how Sapia.ai helped Anglicare, Abano Healthcare, and Berry Street transform their hiring processes by scaling up, reducing burnout, and hiring with heart.
Download it here: