Presentation to 26th IPMAAC Conference on Personnel...

The OSPRE™ Police Promotion System - IPMAAC Conference 2nd July 2002

www.centrex.police.uk

Charlie Eyre(Senior Psychologist)

Presentation to 26th IPMAAC Conference on Personnel Assessment

New Orleans, LA2 July 2002


Who are we?

Centrex Examinations & AssessmentGovernment funded DepartmentBased in Harrogate, N. Yorkshire, U.K.Staffing

16 Occupational Psychologists12 Police Officers14 Administration Staff


What do we do?

Police AssessmentRecruitment - England & WalesProbationer Assessment - England & WalesPromotion - England, Wales & N. IrelandDetective Selection - England & WalesConsultancy Services


Rank Structure

Senior Officers

Sergeant

CONSTABLESONLY POINT OF ENTRY

Sergeant Sergeant

Inspectors

Senior Officers Senior Officers

Chief Officers


Promotion Assessment

ObjectiveStructuredPerformanceRelatedExamination



The OSPRETM System

.Part I - Multiple Choice Examination

(Knowledge of Law & Procedure)

Part II - Assessment Centre(Role-Acted Work Samples)


OSPRETM Part ILaw & Procedure Examination

3000+ Entrants150 Multiple-ChoicePre-Test Tails3 hoursNormatively Scored800 Passes

Inspectors

8000+ Entrants150 Multiple-ChoicePre-Test Tails 3 hoursNormatively Scored2500 Passes

Sergeants


Standardised Syllabus

OSPRETM Part I



Standardised SyllabusExamination Blueprint

OSPRETM Part I


Examination Blueprint

Legislation surveySergeant & Inspector ranks120 areas of legislation rated for:

FrequencyImportance

Ranked cross-product indicesExam content reflects blueprint



Trained MCQ Writers

OSPRETM Part I


MCQ Writer Training

4 Day courseOverview of AssessmentItem DesignPsychometrics - Item AnalysisPractical examinationReview and revise questions

Bank of 120 writersRegular Review Seminars



Trained MCQ Writers

Psychometric Evaluation

OSPRETM Part I



Standard CTT criteriaPre-testing of all items


Internal Consistency

0.70.720.740.760.78

0.80.820.840.860.88

0.9

Sergeants' 1999

Inspectors' 1999

Sergeants' 2000

Inspectors' 2000

Sergeants' 2001

Inspectors' 2001

Sergeants' 2002



Trained MCQ Writers


Quality Assurance

OSPRETM Part I


Quality Assurance

Equal Opportunities expertsInternal legal expertExternal moderator groupExternal legal validation (CPS)



Trained MCQ Writers


Quality Assurance

Feedback

OSPRETM Part I


Candidate Feedback

Evidence & Procedure

The Evidence & Procedure section of the syllabus cover issuesrelating to summons & warrants, bail, court procedures andwitnesses. It covers all aspects of law of evidence, includingsimilar fact evidence, exclusion of admissible evidence anddisclosure of evidence. The police station procedure includingcustody officer’s duties, identifications and interviews was alsopotentially examinable in this area. In relation to this subject area:

82% of candidates scored lower than you.9% of candidates scored the same as you.9% of candidates scored higher than you.


Force FeedbackWestshire (120 Candidates)

20 40 60 80 100

ExamPerformance

Evidence &Procedure

Crime

General PoliceDuties

Road Traffic

Are

as o

f Law

and

Pro

cedu

re

Mean Percentage Rating

Successful

Unsuccessful

*

*

*

*

*


OSPRETM Part IIAssessment Centre

Inspectors3000+ Candidates3 National Locations7 Work Samples 45 Minutes Preparation5 Minutes Activity1600 Passes

Sergeants1400+ Candidates3 National Locations7 Work Samples45 Minutes Preparation5 Minute Activity600 Passes


National CompetenciesTrained Independent AssessorsStakeholder ConsultationRealistic Work SamplesExercise Design ModelQuality AssuranceFeedbackReduced ContaminationProfessional Development

OSPRETM Part II


National Competency Framework

Introduced October 2001Dedicated project team - 2 years projectWill apply in England, Wales & N. IrelandTasks, Knowledge & Behaviours for each rank12 competencies - 2/3 levels each


National Competency Framework

Community and customer focus Effective communication Maximising potential Negotiation and influencingOpenness to change Planning and organising

Personal responsibility Problem solving Resilience Respect for diversity Strategic perspectiveTeamworking


OSPRETM Part II Assessors

Who will they be?How will they be selected?How will the be trained?How will they be used?How will they perform?

Stakeholder ConsultationPolice Promotion Examination Board (PPEB) (input)

Moderators (input and output)

ACPO (input)

Force Representatives (input and output)

Independent Ombudsman (delivery and output)

Equal Opportunities (input, delivery and output)

Candidates (input, delivery and output)

Independent Marking Moderator (output)


Exercise Design Model

1. Stakeholder Consultation 2. Scenario Interviews

4. Trial Exercises3. Exercise Writing

5. Group Discussions 6. Pilot Exercises

7. Marking Guide Design 8. Validate Exercises

10. Exercise Bank9. Marking Guide RefinementUnderpinned by the Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Centre Operations (International Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines) Plus Equal Opportunities input at every stage.


OSPRETM Part II

Competencies Measured Minimum 3 TimesNo Exercise Measuring More than 5 CompetenciesORCE Model (Validated Behavioural Checklist Assessment)

Optically Mark Read Forms (Scanned onto database)

Scored Against Common National Standard


Competency Candidate Feedback

Decision Making: Recognising problems inadvance through checking facts and consideringproblems before taking action. Getting to the heartof problems and summarising informationaccurately. Assessing the feasibility of options andtolerating conflicting information.

How you performed compared to other candidates:

87% of candidates scored lower than you.9% of candidates scored the same as you.4% of candidates scored higher than you.


Exercise Candidate FeedbackExercise: ADAMS

In this exercise the candidate met Constable Adams, a member of the sectorteam, to discuss the officer’s recently completed appraisal. The officer’s appraisalwas good but highlighted areas for development. The officer was keen to becomea traffic officer but needed to set appropriate objectives for the forthcomingappraisal period.

Your grades are:

Decision Making CManaging and Developing Others BLeadership BSelf Motivation A

The majority of candidates were quick to outline to Constable Adams the positiveaspects contained within the appraisal and supported their comments withspecific examples and evidence taken from the appraisal document. This wasgenerally followed by discussing the areas identified for development. Havingcovered these particular issues, most candidates continued the meeting byexploring the personal and career aspirations of Constable Adams….


Westshire(20 Candidates)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Arthur

Hodgson

Lawson

Mathers

O'Neil

Peters

Vickers

Exe

rcis

es


SuccessfulUnsuccessful

**

*

**

**


Westshire(20 Candidates)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Communication

Decision Making

Creativity

Leadership

Professional & Ethical

Self Motivation

Managing & Developing

Operational Planning

Co

mp

eten

cies


SuccessfulUnsuccessful

**

*

**

**

*


Face Validity and Fairness(2002 Inspectors’ Part II - Sample 454)

Scenario Relevant (%) Fair (%)One 89 61Two 96 77Three 99 77Four 95 73Five 94 57Six 97 77Seven 94 68

Total = 95% 70%


Criterion Validity

360o Feedback Performance CriteriaSuccessful Sergeant candidates

Supervisor 0.35Peer 0.44Subordinate 0.29Overall 0.37

(McGuigan 1998, n=63)


Inter-Rater Reliability

Behavioural Statements: 0.88Scalars: 0.71Grades: 0.84

(Stevenson 2001, n=131)


Future Challenges

Criterion-referenced standards for Part I & Part IIFlexibility of administrationGrowth in candidate populationCommercial examination trainingAssessing candidates with disabilities


Contact Details

Ciaran McGuiganHead of Examinations & [email protected]

Charlie EyreSenior [email protected]

Date post:	06-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Presentation to 26th IPMAAC Conference on Personnel...

Documents