2001: published results of first job analysis, funded by Clearing House. Authors: Phillips, Gray and Hatton from Lancaster Programme

2005: Lancaster begin using the competencies established using written task, interview and presentation to collect evidence for competencies

2006: Lancaster begins to use a written task to screen candidates instead of application forms

2007: Clearing House funded research into use of application forms and written test as first sift of applicants. Report in 2008. Published 2010 (Simpson and Hemmings)

2005/6 Leicester Programme fund an occupational psychologist to develop competencies and design an assessment centre approach to selection based on these

2007 Leicester begin screening using a written task

2009 Surrey commence using written test for screening, Salomons join forces for 2011

2011 Shrops/Staffs use written test for screening

2006: Working party founded by Roth, Wang, & Reynolds. › Fast Stream civil service email in tray task

demonstrated at GTiCP › http://faststream.civilservice.gov.uk/How-do-I-apply/Exa

mple-e-Tray-Excercise/› Prohibitive costs to develop this for our use

2009: Results of Clearing House survey of all UK programmes to look at whether there is a will to move to national screening: 54% express interest

2009: Selection sub group of GTiCP formed and in 2010 a bid is made for funding to develop a more up to date set of trainee competencies, for use at the point of selection

Helen Baron, Independent Consultant and selection specialist engaged to undertake the work

Steering group for the project:Mary O’Reilly, LeicesterCathy Amor, LancasterLaura Simonds, Surrey

Matthew Jones -Chesters, UELLinda Hammond, Salomons

Shrops/Staffs Rep (Helena Priest)invited to join us in 2011

Interviews Survey

Leading academics x

Academic course staff x x

Clinical Tutors x x

Placement Supervisors

x x

Trainees x x

Service Users x

Total 31 647

Role N % of total

Course Director 25 4%

Course Lecturer or Tutor 136 21%

Clinical Supervisor 231 35%

Trainee 287 44%

Service User 71 11%

Other 7 1%

Total 647/656 100%/ 116%

Intellectual Ability Communication Skills Self Aware and Open to Learning Personal Maturity Warmth and Empathy Resilience Organised Autonomy and Initiative Motivation and Application Contextual Awareness

Course staff Clinical Supervisors Trainees

Communication Skills Communication Skills Warmth and Empathy

Intellectual Ability and Academic Rigour

Warmth and Empathy Communication Skills

Warmth and Empathy Self Awareness and Openness to Learning

Self Awareness and Openness to Learning

Self Awareness and Openness to Learning

Intellectual Ability and Academic Rigour

Resilience

Resilience Personal Maturity Intellectual Ability and Academic Rigour

Personal Maturity Resilience Personal Maturity

Organisation Motivation and Application

Motivation and Application

Autonomy and Initiative Autonomy and Initiative Organisation

Motivation and Application

Organisation Autonomy and Initiative

Contextual Awareness Contextual Awareness Contextual Awareness

Great 8 Current ModelAnalysing and interpreting Intellectual Ability

Creating and conceptualising Self Aware and Open to Learning

Interacting and presenting Communication Skills

Supporting and cooperating Warmth and Empathy

Organizing and executing Organised

Adapting and coping Resilience

Enterprising and performing Motivation and Application Contextual Awareness

Leading and deciding Autonomy and Initiative

Personal Maturity

*Bartram et al, 2000

Sub-sample from Survey engaged in selection

86 respondents› 23 course directors› 45 other course staff› 13 clinical supervisors› 5 trainees

In principle would you be interested in the development of a national screening test as an aid to shortlisting for your course?

Possibly – depends on measure

Probably yes

Definitely yes

Probably no

Definitely no

Test of Research Comprehension 94%

Situational Judgement Test 85%

Test of writing skills 82%

Verbal Reasoning Measure 82%

Test of English Language and Grammar

82%

Cognitive Ability Tests 70%

Personality Questionnaire 54%

% appropriate or somewhat appropriate

Most courses interested in national shortlisting

Over half interested in pilot Many willing to share costs with students Variety of assessment options seen as

appropriate› Critical Reasoning and other cognitive

measures› Situational Judgement› English Language skills

Three options presented› No change› Limited pilot› Wholesale adoption of screening

Five groups looked at differing issues› What competencies to measure› Development process› Evaluation process› Logistics and liaising with clearing house› Mandate and accountability

In 2011 there were 2000 of 3500 applicants not shortlisted by any course› think of the opportunity costs on staff time (HEI

and NHS) of this duplication. Local decision-making needs to be retained Current off-the-shelf-measures the preferred

way forward › an up-front fee per use that can be known, vs

resources needed to develop and scrutinise bespoke measures being the decider

There needs to be proper transparency and accountability (at local programme level and national GTiCP/DCP level)

It is crucial to work closely with the Clearing House on any forward planning

Time savings within courses especially with high applicant numbers

Potential to reduce duplication of effort across courses

Addresses double tick applicants Mapped to competence model Based on sound selection practice Capable of empirical study to check

validity etc.

Many courses involve clinicians and service users at the ‘screening by form information’ stage

Feeling that if it isn’t broke don’t fix it Concern about costs of development

Lancs: › Daiches and Amor (2006) › Simpson et al (2011)

Leics: GTiCP conference 2007 Surrey/Salomons: GTiCP conference

2009

To date, 5 programmes are using a screening task

This is a written task Two programmes have collaborated to

use the same task and process (and are reported as one)

• Completed– At the University: all programmes – On computer: 3 programmes– By hand: 1 programme

• Marked– By computer: 1 programme– By hand: 3 programmes

• Past papers– 2 programmes make these available on-

line, 2 do not

• Length of exercise– 30 mins to 1 hour (Mean 49 mins)

• Number of questions– 7-14 (mean = 9)

• 2 programmes allow flexibility in order of answering questions

2 programmes ask only about quantitative research

2 programmes give equal emphasis to quantitative and qualitative methods

No psychological knowledge beyond undergraduate is assumed

• Cut off score– 1 programme has a cut off score (50%), 3 rank

order

• Intellectual ability and academic rigour• Written communication Resilience Organisation Motivation and application

Analyses and integrates complex/contradictory material› 2/4

Synthesises ideas from a variety of sources› 2/4

Solves problems creatively› 3/4

Critically evaluates information› 4/4

Shows good academic and research skills› 4/4

All other indicators in this area endorsed by one programme or other

All competences under written communication

Precise, well expressed and clear› 4/4

Well organised and grammatical› 4/4

Adapted to purpose and reader› 2/4

Coherently argued› 4/4

Copes well with pressure› 4/4

Tolerates anxiety and uncertainty› 4/4

Shows flexibility when required› 2/4

Shows confidence in own ability to deal with multiple demands› 2/4

Is punctual and reliable› 3/4

Prioritises tasks and uses time effectively› 3/4

Is committed to completing tasks as well as possible

Invests additional effort willingly Is dedicated to career as clinical

psychologist

This competency area mapped by just one course, however, arguably applies to all test takers!

Multi-stage selection process can manage all double tick candidates

All those who meet essential criteria are invited to sit the screening test

Need to set a cut off score below which no candidate can be progressed to next stage› Eg minimum of 60%› Ranking of candidates not accepted under

double tick All double tick applicants above cut score

then invited to next stage

Directors have said ‘go on’, and want to take more ownership of the project

Steering group made up of directors across regional areas

Working group Terms of reference to be drawn up by

Malcolm Adams

Proposal to Pilot use of a common measure for 2013 intake

Requesting further funding for development of a common test › Perhaps one course centre to take lead under

the steering group Initial ideas: One day (Saturday)

› One test (form and content)› Computer administration› Scoring options available

machine scored for all but many centres will hand mark

Advance notice in Clearing House course entries

One common test vs one common form and different content

One testing day vs several Regional/area testing centres All applicants to the ‘opted in’

programmes attend one centre for test No charge to candidates during pilot

Competencies

Screening

National Screenin

g?