Write anchors before seeing candidates
Course overview · 4 min reading + 12 min practice, estimated
Principles and method
A numerical scale needs descriptions of observable evidence. Define what insufficient, adequate and strong evidence looks like in the role context. Avoid anchors that merely repeat weak, average and excellent. Include an explicit not assessed or insufficient evidence state so missing information is not automatically scored as failure. Anchor descriptions should guide judgement without pretending to measure capability with laboratory precision. Test them on fictional responses and revise ambiguous distinctions. Keep the version used for each decision so later changes do not rewrite the original standard.
Worked example
For incident analysis, adequate evidence identifies a plausible cause, checks it against data and proposes a verified corrective action. Strong evidence additionally addresses alternative explanations and recurrence monitoring.
Put it into practice
Write three anchors and a missing-evidence rule for two criteria.
Use fictional information and keep your work in your own notes.
Compare your approach: self-review guidance
A second assessor should be able to explain why an example falls in one band. If the only distinction is more impressive wording, rewrite the anchor around the work demonstrated.
Sources and further reading
Original Academy teaching and fictional examples. These references provide context, not endorsement. Edition 2026.09; updated 2026-09-24.
- CIPD: Selection methods
Professional context for selection methods and their limitations.
- GOV.UK: Discrimination in recruitment
UK legal context. Obtain advice for your jurisdiction and circumstances.