No more tick boxes identified several ways of testing for the competencies set out in any 'success profile'. The table below, taken from the report, summarises the key factors to be considered when choosing which methods fare best on prediction and on promoting diversity.
|
Selection method |
Reliability |
Validity |
Candidate acceptability |
Cost to organisation |
Promotes diversity |
Susceptibility to coaching |
|
Unstructured interviews |
Low |
Low |
High |
Moderate to high |
Low |
High |
|
Structured interviews |
Moderate to high |
Moderate |
High |
Moderate to high |
Moderate |
Moderate |
|
Group interviews |
Low |
Low |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Low |
High |
|
Personal statements |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low to moderate |
Low |
High |
|
References |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low to moderate |
Low |
N/a |
|
Situational judgement tests |
High |
High (1) |
Moderate to high |
Low to moderate (2) |
High |
Moderate to high |
|
Personality testing |
High |
Moderate |
Low to moderate |
Low to moderate |
Moderate |
Moderate to high |
|
Selection centres using work samples, in tray test etc |
Moderate to high |
High (3) |
High |
High |
Moderate |
|
Comparisons of most common interview and selection methods
Source: Health Education England (HEE)
(1) if based on robust psychometric methodology
(2) if used for high volume selection
(3) only if exercises are used in combination based on a multi-trait method approach.
No more tick boxes identifies that despite there being a research consensus on what works (and what doesn't), consistent application by NHS organisations is a challenge both because of work and time pressures as well as a lack of clarity and awareness on the risks of bias, stereotypes and assumptions by many of those shortlisting and interviewing. However, this is the responsibility of the employer to address through robust training and auditing of those involved in all aspects of the recruitment process. If suitable recruiters are not available within individual teams, then consider organisational wide pools of recruiters and interviewers to step in until all involved are upskilled.
Before the interviews start:
- Pre-interview preparation needs to set the scene so there is a reminder about the risk of bias before each interview starts. Focus should be given to affinity bias and confirmation bias, and the importance of always being conscious of the risk of succumbing to stereotypical views of the candidates.
- Panel members should evidence training and or awareness of inclusive recruitment and interviewing techniques. They should be able to justify their choices and scoring based on the evidence presented by the candidate.
- Panel members must declare an interest if they know a candidate and confirm they have not discussed any aspect of the interview with them.
- The importance of encouraging challenge to the chairperson is essential to avoid conformity bias. Panel composition and independence should be considered to enable this.
- At any point in the interview process (not when a candidate is in the room) panel members should be expected to interrupt the process if they think there is a significant issue of bias emerging. The panel chair should be expected to lead on this where possible.
- Ensure that panellists are aware of how to pronounce the names of candidates, be willing to ask if they do not and ensure that the candidate is made to feel welcome. This should be discussed and agreed pre-interview.
- Ensure all panellists have aligned behaviours around NHS values.
- HR teams should undertake an audit of interview outcomes to check for bias. Interviewers (especially the panel chair) should be approached if there are concerns. Regular audits are good practice to ensure confidence in the process and be aware of any problems before they become entrenched. Snap audits are industry standard best practices for all processes in organisations and should be integral to recruitment given the significance of the decision on wider organisational culture and operations.