Selection of chairs of primary care trusts: Evidence of reliability and validity

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Findings

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.

Practical implications

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.

Citation

Alban‐Metcalfe, J., Alimo‐Metcalfe, B. and Hughes, M. (2010), "Selection of chairs of primary care trusts: Evidence of reliability and validity", Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 57-99. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777261011029570