Introduction

In many clients’ minds, Assessment Centres (ACs) have enjoyed a reputation as the superior method of assessment of individuals for selection and development. However, ACs are plagued by practical issues that tend to limit their effectiveness.

Objectives

For organisations to get the intended benefits, guidance should be given on best practice AC implementation, and be clear of the risks where intended practice is questionable. This paper highlights some of these areas through practical illustration and reference to the recent BPS AC Standards.

Design/Methodology

A practical ‘in the field’ spotlight on what is actually happening in Assessment Centres on a case basis.  AC processes were reviewed from 10 provider companies based in the UK, to draw out key areas of practice to categorise ‘best’ to ‘questionable’ implementation.

Results

Critical case observations include:

Competency Definitions. Redesign vs use as given

Assessors. Trained vs Untrained

Support staff. Nominated Administrators vs No administration support

Role Players. Use of Trained Actors vs Assessors stepping in

Exercises. Bespoke vs Off the shelf

Psychometrics. Expert users vs Untrained personnel in test use

Scoring. Unified scoring systems vs Multiple scale scores

Results feedback . Live discussion vs Distant reporting

Within each observation, the relevant point of the Standard will be referenced to show how it helps specify to both providers and clients what is to be expected.  Links to quality assurance in AC implementation for individuals and organisations with reference to BPS Test User Qualifications and ISO 10667 is also made.

Conclusion

It is shown that the BPS AC Standards do give a clear line to follow to cut through the large bandwidth of possible practice.  In this respect, the Standards are a step up from the previous guidelines, with much more emphasis on what providers need to do with concrete examples and illustrations.