This would IMO be a better gauge of technical quality over white-board interviews.
Most people have zero professional training on how to do them properly. So don't.
Using the technical interview approach, Einstein wouldn't get a job as a physicist because he had trouble doing simple math problems. That's not Einstein's fault. That's your fault.
Use methods of interviewing that are time-honored and aren't cargo cult. Conversational interviewing comes to mind.
Most people have zero professional training on how to do them properly. So don't.
/s
Says someone who clearly doesn't have to worry about the threat of demonic rattlesnakes.
Quite likely, there's no one-size-fits-all solution for assessing candidates.
The way I approach this is by looking at the candidate's background and trying to make connections to the product the company or team is working on.
Then I have an open conversation with the candidate about these connecting points and possibly related subjects. It usually becomes obvious quite quickly if the candidate knows what he or she is talking about. It also gives you an idea about how the candidate communicates, which often is more important than technical skill.
Technically, that's still a technical interview but it's much more free-form than the rigid white-board interview format. It's more of a conversation between equals rather than a test setting, where one side is being questioned.
How could a developer get a 'hire' or 'strong hire' rating without communicating their ideas clearly to the interviewer?
Then if you want to measure communication skills etc then just look over some of his commits and get him to explain them to you.
People game the system because a system exists to be gamed.