Virtual or face-to-face assessment centres: what should drive decisions?

For several years, employers have debated whether assessment centres work better virtually or face to face. By 2026, that is probably the wrong question, writes Dave Iles, managing director at Talenscio

Both formats are now established. The more useful starting point is to ask what candidates need to do, what assessors need to observe, and which environment gives people the fairest opportunity to demonstrate it.

That matters because virtual and face-to-face assessment centres are not simply interchangeable versions of the same event. A large 2025 field study involving 10,898 candidates found broadly similar assessor reliability between virtual and face-to-face centres, but also differences in how some capabilities were expressed and in the performance ratings candidates received. The researchers concluded that the evidence supports the use of virtual assessment centres, while also cautioning that more work is needed to understand where the differences matter.

It's about what you're trying to observe

An assessment centre is valuable because it gives employers the opportunity to see candidates doing things, not simply talking about what they have done before.

That might involve working through a group problem, delivering a presentation, handling a difficult conversation, analysing information or responding to a role-play. Some of those activities transfer naturally to a virtual setting. Others may benefit from physical interaction.

Almost any exercise can be recreated online. The real test is whether doing so changes the behaviour you're trying to observe.

If the role itself involves working with colleagues remotely, sharing information on screen and collaborating across locations, a virtual exercise may actually provide useful realism. Conversely, if the role depends heavily on navigating a physical environment or interacting with people in person, there may be a stronger case for bringing candidates together.

Format can widen or narrow access

Format also changes who can take part, and at what cost. A virtual centre can remove hours of travel, accommodation costs and geographical barriers. That can be particularly significant for national or international campaigns, candidates with caring responsibilities, and people who may otherwise need to take substantial time away from work or study.

But virtual does not automatically mean accessible. Candidates still need suitable technology, connectivity and somewhere they can participate without interruption. Moving an assessment online can remove some barriers while creating others.

The same principle applies face to face. Meeting future colleagues and seeing the workplace can help candidates understand the organisation in a way that is difficult to reproduce online. If that is genuinely part of the recruitment objective, it has value. If candidates are travelling across the country simply because ‘that is how we have always run assessment centres', it is worth questioning.

Operational efficiency matters, but it should not decide everything

There are obvious practical benefits to virtual delivery. Assessors can join from different locations, office space is less of a constraint and large campaigns can be easier to coordinate.

Those are legitimate considerations. Recruitment teams have budgets, limited assessor availability and deadlines to meet. The risk comes when efficiency becomes the assessment strategy.

A cheaper or faster process is not a better process if it makes it harder to observe the behaviours that matter. Equally, an expensive face-to-face centre is not automatically better because candidates and assessors happen to be in the same room. The format should support the assessment design, not dictate it.

Quality matters more than location

One of the more useful lessons from the shift to virtual assessment is that many of the things that determine whether a centre works well have very little to do with where it takes place.

Candidates need to understand what is expected of them. Exercises need to generate relevant evidence. Assessors need clear criteria and enough opportunity to observe behaviour. Scoring needs to be consistent. Technology needs to work. Communication before and during the event needs to reduce unnecessary uncertainty.

Poorly designed assessment is still poorly designed assessment, whether it happens on screen or in an office.

The mature decision in 2026 is therefore unlikely to be 'we are a virtual employer' or ‘we believe face to face is better'. For some campaigns, virtual will make complete sense. For others, bringing candidates together will add something valuable. Some employers may use both depending on the role, candidate population or stage of the process.

The better question is simpler: which environment gives candidates the best opportunity to show us the things we genuinely need to assess? Once that is clear, the format becomes a much easier decision.

Whichever format is chosen, a dedicated assessment-centre platform can help bring schedules, activities, assessor evidence, scoring and reporting into one process, supporting consistency without dictating how the assessment itself is designed.

Notes

1. Virtual assessment centres versus face-to-face assessment centres: psychometric properties, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2025.
2. How to get the most out of virtual assessment centres, Institute of Student Employers, 2024.
3. How to create a futureproof candidate experience, Institute of Student Employers, 2024.

Written by

Dave Iles

Managing director

Talenscio