Staff Selection System

Assessments Other than Competency-Based Interviews

  1. Assessments may test the cognitive abilities, situational judgement, personality, integrity, substantive or technical knowledge and skills, communication or drafting skills, language proficiency or any other areas relevant to the evaluation criteria of the job opening. Any assessment methodologies or techniques may be used including assessment centres. Assessments should be designed to avoid any gender, cultural or geographical bias in the recruitment outcomes.
  2. Assessments other than CBI interviews (e.g. written tests) should normally occur after preliminary evaluation. However, for operational reasons (e.g. high volume of candidates screened in for manual assessment), the Hiring Manager may decide to administer an initial assessment to all candidates screened in (candidates at “screen disposition”) to reduce the number of candidates requiring preliminary evaluation. If an entity would like to pursue this approach, it is recommended to document and report this decision to BTA as an exception to the ordering of preliminary evaluation and other assessments suggested in in ST/AI/2010/3 paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5 and inform candidates that it is a screening test and applications will be subject to further eligibility review.
  3. The panel should have a consensus on the grading methodology.
  4. Grading is normally anonymous, unless the panel lacks the means to do so or when the nature of the specific assessment type entails revealing the identity of the applicants, such as in cases of interviews or presentations. Examples of anonymous grading include the double-blind method for written response assessments, which involves taking the following steps:
    1. A moderator (e.g. Administrative or Team Assistant) assigns unique identification numbers to each response in place of the applicants’ names.
    2. Two panel members mark the candidate’s response separately and without knowledge of the applicant’s identity.
    3. If the moderator finds a discrepancy of 20 per cent or more between the two marks for an applicant, then the moderator can request that the graders to review their initial marks. The graders should not be made aware of the extent of the discrepancy.
    4. Once all discrepancies are resolved, the moderator can reveal the names of the successful applicants who achieved the passing score. The passing score may be determined by the assessment panel members once the assessments have been marked.

)footnote1




Last modified: 1 August 2023