Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

The CCSB Supplementary Application Form: A Candidate's Reply to Adrian Carter

Document Cited in Related
Vincent
Published date01 March 1994
DOI10.1177/095207679400900109
AuthorPaul Harrison
Date01 March 1994
Subject MatterArticles
/tmp/tmp-189UAwVPK2KQ7K/input
The CCSB Supplementary Application Form:
A
Candidate’s Reply to Adrian Carter
Paul Harrison
In the previous issue of Public Policy and Administration, I Adrian Carter,
Director of CCSB Fast Stream Recruitment, addressed some questions raised by
Richard A. Chapman.2 The article concerned the introduction of a supplementary
questionnaire into the initial stage of fast stream selection in the academic year
1992/93. I was myself a candidate in that competition.
The stated objectives of the selection procedures are ’fairness, consistency and
cost-effectiveness’.3 The cognitive test in itself appeared to be fair and consistent:
the questions and time allocation were the same for all candidates. A definite
answer has to be chosen from a list of possibilities, and answers are marked
objectively. As Carter has indicated, the test ’proved a good prediction of
performance at CCSB’.4 So why change?
One of the reasons for introducing the Supplementary Application Form
(SAF) was to provide information for an assessment of candidates’ zest and
interpersonal skills. While it is true that the cognitive tests tell little about such
abilities, my concern is whether the SAF fills the gap perceived in those tests.
Objections to the SAF can be raised in two respects. The first objection
relates to the format of the paper. It contains a restricted number of multiple
choice type questions. This is surely not an efficient means of assessing personal
qualities. Moreover, while the application form was intended to be wide-ranging
so as to avoid the exclusion of what Carter has described as ’potentially’ relevant
information’5, the actual means to achieve these intentions was not wide-ranging
at all. Indeed, the limited range of answers on offer gave no opportunity for
explanation or justification. Such excluded information could well be vital to
recruitment, allowing selectors to contextualize the actions of individuals, giving
a more comprehensive indication of personality and style. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT