Suggested Changes to Step 7: Initial Panel Review and Step 9: Final Panel Review

As noted earlier in the chapter, there seems to be overlap in the content obtained in the interview, the background and field investigations, and the initial and final panel reviews. As such, we believe that a single panel review may be sufficient.

The panel rating process is also highly standardized in ways that are very similar to interviewer ratings. We therefore recommend making small improvements, such as adding structure to the assignment of overall scores and providing concrete examples of how to use each criterion in assigning ratings.

Suggested Changes to Step 10: Medical and Psychological Evaluations

More could be done to document links between the psychological and medical criteria and the job requirements outlined in the recent job analyses. More could also be done to examine reliability and consistency in the decisions made as a result of the medical and physical screening process. Additionally, there appears to be some confusion about the role of the background screening relative to the medical screening process. Some of the people we spoke with suggested that part of the field investigation and the background interviews (Steps 8 and 6 respectively) may be intended for use by the medical and psychological personnel; however, the medical personnel and the psychologists are not aware of which parts of the background check, if any, have that intent. This lack of clarity suggests that more could be done to specify a clear purpose for each element of the background investigation (Steps 6 and 8). If such elements are intended for use by medical personnel or psychologists, they should be clearly communicated and carefully designed and validated to meet their needs.

 
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >