Real World Group, Leeds, UK.
J Health Organ Manag. 2010;24(1):57-99. doi: 10.1108/14777261011029570.
This paper aims to examine empirical evidence of the criterion, construct, and face validity of two processes commonly used in selection--selection interviews and assessment centres (ACs) - in the selection of chairs of primary care trusts.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A critical review of the literature and an empirical investigation are undertaken.
Evidence is presented of the reliability and the predictive, construct, and face validity of using a combination of selection interviews and AC methodology in appointments to public office. In the light of the evidence of the potential benefits of using more than one approach, it is suggested that a combination of AC methodology and panel interviews be used in making public sector appointments.
The evidence presented supports the decision of the Appointment Commission to use AC methodology in the selection for positions in public office, and points to ways in which the process could be improved.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper provides empirical evidence of the reliability and validity of two methodologies used in selection to posts.
本文旨在考察在初级保健信托机构主席的选拔中，两种常用选拔方法——选拔面试和评估中心（AC）——的准则、结构和表面效度的经验证据。
设计/方法/途径：进行了文献综述和实证研究。
在公共职位的任命中使用组合的选拔面试和 AC 方法具有可靠性和预测性、结构性和表面效度的证据。鉴于使用多种方法的潜在好处的证据，建议在公共部门任命中使用 AC 方法和小组面试的组合。
提出的证据支持任命委员会在公共职位选拔中使用 AC 方法的决定，并指出了改进该过程的方法。
原创性/价值：本文提供了两种用于选拔职位的方法的可靠性和有效性的经验证据。
