Page 34 - Judicial Diversity Update report

2.38. An external review of four JAC exercises conducted by the Work Psychology
Group (WPG), found that BAME candidates in the Deputy High Court judge
exercise failed disproportionately at the sift stage, though it could not account
for why.
80
Work Psychology Group report

In 2018 Work Psychology Group (WPG) was commissioned by the JAC to
undertake an external review of shortlisting processes for four recent or ongoing
large exercises, namely: Deputy District Judge, Fee Paid Judges of the First Tier
Tribunal, Deputy High Court Judge and Recorder. For our purposes the most
interesting exercises were the latter two. The WPG collected and evaluated data
on selection exercises which used either a telephone assessment or qualifying
test (or a combination of both) as shortlisting tools, with successful candidates
progressing to the selection day.
81
The WPG reported back with findings and recommendations in July 2018. Its
Summary Report provides valuable insight into the way in which the different
elements of appointment processes impact on different groups.

In reviewing the psychometric evaluation for the Deputy High Court Judge
exercises, the WPG found: no adverse impact based on gender across all
shortlisting stages nor any adverse impact regarding disability at sift or a
telephone assessment, though the sample was too small to evaluate the selection
day. It did however find an adverse impact for BAME candidates at the sift stage
but not at the Telephone Assessment or on selection day; and an adverse impact
for solicitors across the sift and Telephone Assessment, with too small a sample
to investigate the impacts on selection day.
The report also found that the shortlisting format continues to benefit those with
certain legal experience, and that there is a strong focus on assessing some
competencies over others.

80 Working Psychology Group, ‘Review of JAC Shortlisting Tools – Summary Report &
Conclusions’, July 2018, p.5, available online at
https://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sync/about_the_jac/research-shortlisting-
tools-report-2018.pdf.
81 Ibid.
29