title: Selection of chairs of primary care trusts: evidence of reliability and validity.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This paper aims to examine empirical evidence of the criterion, construct, and face validity of two processes commonly used in selection--selection interviews and assessment centres (ACs) - in the selection of chairs of primary care trusts.
  
  
  METHODS
  A critical review of the literature and an empirical investigation are undertaken.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Evidence is presented of the reliability and the predictive, construct, and face validity of using a combination of selection interviews and AC methodology in appointments to public office. In the light of the evidence of the potential benefits of using more than one approach, it is suggested that a combination of AC methodology and panel interviews be used in making public sector appointments.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The evidence presented supports the decision of the Appointment Commission to use AC methodology in the selection for positions in public office, and points to ways in which the process could be improved.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The paper provides empirical evidence of the reliability and validity of two methodologies used in selection to posts.
authors.affiliation: Real World Group, Leeds, UK. john.abanmetcalfe@realworld-group.com
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Alban-Metcalfe
authors.forename: Beverly
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Alimo-Metcalfe
authors.forename: Miranda
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Hughes
mesh_terms: D016542:Chief Executive Officers, Hospital; D006779:Hospitals, Public; D006801:Humans; D010560:Personnel Selection / Q000379:methods*; D011320:Primary Health Care; D006113:United Kingdom