Calibrate raters and document the decision
Course overview · 4 min reading + 12 min practice, estimated
Principles and method
Ask assessors to score the same fictional evidence independently, then compare reasons. Differences can reveal vague anchors, missing context or different interpretations of the criterion. Resolve the interpretation before using the scorecard on live candidates. During hiring, discuss evidence after individual scoring to reduce conformity pressure. Record the final rationale, unresolved gaps and any follow-up. Calibration does not require forcing every assessor to agree; meaningful differences should remain visible. Review the scorecard when role requirements or evidence from later performance suggest a weakness.
Worked example
Two assessors give the same answer scores of two and four. One rewards fluent delivery; the other rewards the actual diagnostic steps. Calibration clarifies that fluency is not part of the incident-analysis criterion.
Put it into practice
Score two fictional responses, write a disagreement note and revise one anchor.
Use fictional information and keep your work in your own notes.
Compare your approach: self-review guidance
The revision should explain the source of disagreement and improve future interpretation. Preserve the distinction between evidence quality and presentation style unless communication is explicitly being assessed.
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.