Qualifying tests and paper sift

JAC tests are written papers, used to shortlist candidates for the selection day stage of most exercises. They are designed to assess candidates' ability to perform in a judicial role, by analysing case studies, identifying issues and applying the law.

Use of tests
The JAC has adopted tests as an objective method for taking shortlisting decisions. However, we tailor our processes appropriately and might not always use qualifying tests. For example, when there are a small number of vacancies or in other limited circumstances we may instead choose to use a paper sift.

Marking and moderation
The tests are marked by experienced judges and the results are carefully moderated by the judge markers and the JAC to ensure consistency in the marking. Marking and moderation is done in such away that the marker cannot identify the candidate from the answer script.

Any change to candidates' results as an outcome of the moderation process is made with the explicit agreement of the marking judges to ensure consistency of approach and application.

Results at the testing stage may be made available to the selection panel to help inform, alongside all the other information gathered, the panel's discussion regarding the candidate.

Candidates should note that rather than setting a pass mark for a qualifying test, the JAC predetermines the number of candidates that are to be invited to an interview, at a ratio of two to three per vacancy.

Quality assurance
Tests are subject to a quality assurance process to ensure that they are fit for purpose and that there has been consistency and accuracy of marking.

Test papers are generally prepared and marked by serving judges, equality proofed by external experts and trialled in a mock environment. The results are analysed for any anomalies and any necessary corrective action is taken.  Once candidates have sat the tests and the papers have been marked, the marking judges and the JAC Assigned Commissioner sample check 10 per cent and 20 per cent are subject to sample checking by JAC Directors.

If any marking discrepancies are identified the 'sample check' may be extended up to and including a 100 per cent check of all test papers if necessary.

In light of this robust moderation and quality assurance process the JAC does not consider that a formal process for revisiting qualifying test papers for individual candidates is appropriate or necessary.

Developments
We are working towards moving tests online. Candidates have told us they want this to provide improved anonymity when applying for judicial roles and to enable them to sit a test at a convenient time and location. Online tests should also improve the speed and cost effectiveness of selection processes. The expectation that all candidates will take tests online is in accordance with the Government's strategy of 'digital by default'. Candidates can request reasonable adjustments to ensure they can participate in the selection process fairly. Alongside this we continue to explore alternative methods for shortlisting.