Search

The ability to innovate is an important requirement in many organisations. Despite this pressing need, few selection systems in healthcare focus on identifying the potential for creativity and innovation and so this area has been vastly under-researched. As a first step towards understanding how we might select for creativity and innovation, this paper explores the use of a trait-based measure of creativity and innovation potential, and evaluates its efficacy for use in selection for healthcare education. This study uses a sample of 188 postgraduate physicians applying for education and training in UK General Practice. Participants completed two questionnaires (a trait-based measure of creativity and innovation, and a measure of the Big Five personality dimensions) and were also rated by assessors on creative problem solving measured during a selection centre. In exploring the construct validity of the trait-based measure of creativity and innovation, our research clarifies the associations between personality, and creativity and innovation. In particular, our study highlights the importance of motivation in the creativity and innovation process. Results also suggest that Openness to Experience is positively related to creativity and innovation whereas some aspects of Conscientiousness are negatively associated with creativity and innovation. Results broadly support the utility of using a trait-based measure of creativity and innovation in healthcare selection processes, although practically this may be best delivered as part of an interview process, rather than as a screening tool. Findings are discussed in relation to broader implications for placing more priority on creativity and innovation as selection criteria within healthcare education and training in future.

Displaying compassion, benevolence and respect, and preserving the dignity of patients are important for any healthcare professional to ensure the provision of high quality care and patient outcomes. This paper presents a structured search and thematic review of the research evidence relating to values-based recruitment within healthcare. Several different databases, journals and government reports were searched to retrieve studies relating to values-based recruitment published between 1998 and 2013, both in healthcare settings and other occupational contexts. There is limited published research related to values-based recruitment directly, so the available theoretical context of values is explored alongside an analysis of the impact of value congruence. The implications for the design of selection methods to measure values is explored beyond the scope of the initial literature search. Research suggests some selection methods may be appropriate for values-based recruitment, such as situational judgment tests (SJTs), structured interviews and multiple-mini interviews (MMIs). Personality tests were also identified as having the potential to compliment other methods (e.g. structured interviews), as part of a values-based recruitment agenda. Methods including personal statements, references and unstructured/"traditional" interviews were identified as inappropriate for values-based recruitment. Practical implications are discussed in the context of values-based recruitment in the healthcare context. Theoretical implications of our findings imply that prosocial implicit trait policies, which could be measured by selection tools such as SJTs and MMIs, may be linked to individuals' values via the behaviours individuals consider to be effective in given situations. Further research is required to state this conclusively however, and methods for values-based recruitment represent an exciting and relatively unchartered territory for further research.

This paper explores the relationship between self-reported innovative characteristics and dysfunctional personality traits. Participants (N = 207) from a range of occupations completed the Innovation Potential Indicator (IPI) and the Hogan Development Survey (HDS). Those who reported innovative characteristics also reported the following dysfunctional traits: Arrogant, Manipulative, Dramatic, Eccentric; and lower levels of Cautious, Perfectionist and Dependent. A representative approximation of the higher order factor "moving against people" (Hogan & Hogan, 1997) was positively associated with innovative characteristics. It is concluded that innovation potential may be viewed as a positive effect of some otherwise dysfunctional traits, most notably those encompassed under the second-order HDS factor "moving against people". (Contains 5 tables and 2 footnotes.)

A study to examine the methods used for selecting employees in 579 UK organizations across various industries and different organization sizes is presented. A small proportion of those sampled has reported using formalized methods than informal methods. The most commonly used method was the curriculum vitae and then followed by the application form, interviews and references.

This research examined how individual traits and perceptions of relationship quality with a manager differentially influence two stages of employee innovation: idea generation and idea implementation. One hundred and twenty-six employees from a range of business sectors completed a survey to assess traits related to innovation (as measured by the Innovation Potential Indicator [IPI]), proactive personality, and perceptions of the quality of their relationship with their supervisor (LMX). Results showed that proactive personality predicted idea generation, while LMX predicted only idea implementation. The motivation to change factor of the IPI predicted both stages of employee innovation. Results thus showed that the two stages of employee innovation have common and different antecedents. Findings are discussed in relation to their implications for organizations looking to increase levels of employee innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why use SJTs?Traditionally, selection into medical education professions has focused primarily upon academic ability alone. This approach has been questioned more recently, as although academic attainment predicts performance early in training, research shows it has less predictive power for demonstrating competence in postgraduate clinical practice. Such evidence, coupled with an increasing focus on individuals working in healthcare roles displaying the core values of compassionate care, benevolence and respect, illustrates that individuals should be selected on attributes other than academic ability alone. Moreover, there are mounting calls to widen access to medicine, to ensure that selection methods do not unfairly disadvantage individuals from specific groups (e.g. regarding ethnicity or socio-economic status), so that the future workforce adequately represents society as a whole. These drivers necessitate a method of assessment that allows individuals to be selected on important non-academic attributes that are desirable in healthcare professionals, in a fair, reliable and valid way. What are SJTs?Situational judgement tests (SJTs) are tests used to assess individuals’ reactions to a number of hypothetical role-relevant scenarios, which reflect situations candidates are likely to encounter in the target role. These scenarios are based on a detailed analysis of the role and should be developed in collaboration with subject matter experts, in order to accurately assess the key attributes that are associated with competent performance. From a theoretical perspective, SJTs are believed to measure prosocial Implicit Trait Policies (ITPs), which are shaped by socialisation processes that teach the utility of expressing certain traits in different settings such as agreeable expressions (e.g. helping others in need), or disagreeable actions (e.g. advancing ones own interest at others, expense). Are SJTs reliable, valid and fair?Several studies, including good quality meta-analytic and longitudinal research, consistently show that SJTs used in many different occupational groups are reliable and valid. Although there is over 40 years of research evidence available on SJTs, it is only within the past 10 years that SJTs have been used for recruitment into medicine. Specifically, evidence consistently shows that SJTs used in medical selection have good reliability, and predict performance across a range of medical professions, including performance in general practice, in early years (foundation training as a junior doctor) and for medical school admissions. In addition, SJTs have been found to have significant added value (incremental validity) over and above other selection methods such as knowledge tests, measures of cognitive ability, personality tests and application forms. Regarding differential attainment, generally SJTs have been found to have lower adverse impact compared to other selection methods, such as cognitive ability tests. SJTs have the benefit of being appropriate both for use in selection where candidates are novices (i.e. have no prior role experience or knowledge such as in medical school admissions) as well as settings where candidates have substantial job knowledge and specific experience (as in postgraduate recruitment for more senior roles). An SJT specification (e.g. scenario content, response instructions and format) may differ depending on the level of job knowledge required. Research consistently shows that SJTs are usually found to be positively received by candidates compared to other selection tests such as cognitive ability and personality tests. Practically, SJTs are difficult to design effectively, and significant expertise is required to build a reliable and valid SJT. Once designed however, SJTs are cost efficient to administer to large numbers of candidates compared to other tests of non-academic attributes (e.g. personal statements, structured interviews), as they are standardised and can be computer-delivered and machine-marked. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]