The solution
Due to the ambitious scope of the project, every activity was defined in detail and timescales were assigned to each of the key stakeholders from GRS and Talogy.
For the test to be realistic across departments and levels of seniority, 61 deep-dive interviews with internal experts were carried out and over 200 job descriptions were reviewed. A team of 9 psychologists from Talogy generated 3,078 questions for the assessment and the content was reviewed by 74 internal experts, 42% of which were from diversity networks or units. They were asked to assess and comment on the fairness, inclusivity and relevance of the test.
The test also needed to be engaging and relevant. Therefore, a series of 6 workshops were carried out with 22 experts to review the scripts for the multimedia elements of the assessment. Significant effort was invested in identifying diverse and talented actors to make the test immersive and realistic. Over 1,300 applications were received, from which 57 of the best actors were cast covering 77 roles. To ensure the production was as cost effective as possible, it was filmed at a studio specializing in green screen. 67 videos were produced in just 6 days, which would have been significantly longer and more expensive if filmed on location.
The project involved significant stakeholder involvement with contributors from 27 professions, 98 departments/agencies, staff networks, Civil Service Commissioners office and Trade Unions representation. GRS made a significant effort throughout the project to include disabled people in the scoping, implementation and early testing phases. In February 2017, the Digital Accessibility Center (DAC) was commissioned to test the software to ensure it met best practice accessibility standards and legislation. This testing involved 10 QAs all of whom had disabilities and experienced first-hand the barriers an inaccessible website can create.
Ultimately the goal was to design an item banked assessment that comprised of 44 tests. Over 16,000 test completions were used to analyze the adverse impact and validity of the assessments before implementation and create accurate norms.