Recent feedback from a Foundation trust Workforce Director was that:
‘Dearden (assessment) reports offer so much more than other (reports)’
What do we do that makes the difference? We have just been discussing why it is that our clients say that our assessment reports give them so much more useful information on candidates than other sources of assessment?
And our answers are that it’s not just what we do but how we do it. Our analysis often includes pulling together the results
from several assessment processes such as psychometrics, stakeholder group meetings and scenario exercises, and triangulating the outputs to produce our detailed opinions of each candidate. The key is what we then do: talk to each candidate in depth about how (and whether) our assessment reflects how they work in practice and we take time to think through and write each candidate’s report individually.
The process of thinking through what we saw or did not see as we write which gels our thoughts. Most importantly we will provide face to face summaries and feedback in person to the panel members at the final interview, when we succinctly discuss the qualities, developments needs and importantly the differences between the candidates. We place all of this process into context, suggesting how these features will impact in the role for which the candidates are applying.
A recent comment from a clinical lead who knew a candidate well suggests that our short assessment process gives an accurate picture:
‘You have described him to a T. 10 out of 10!’