Workplace Investigation and Evidence Weighing Assessment for HR and Employee Relations TeamsThe finding has to survive being read by somebody who was not in the room.

Methodology: Thirty-eight original exercises across six formats: eighteen situational judgement items of which six are the rungs of one case, five select-every-that-applies exercises, five keyed claims, four most-and-least forced choices, three matching exercises and three ordering exercises. The declared response instruction is behavioural tendency throughout - what you are most likely to do - and one instruction covers the whole form. Construct statement: it measures how somebody scopes an allegation, gathers accounts without shaping them, weighs evidence that conflicts, and writes a finding that a reader who was not present can test. It does not measure knowledge of any country's employment law, it does not certify anybody to conduct investigations, it says nothing about whether a particular finding would survive a tribunal, and it is not a measure of fairness as a personal quality. Scoring is a path-value trajectory with recovery credit for the six-rung case and chance-corrected graded credit for the rest. Every rung is scored between the worst and the best move available AT THAT RUNG, so one early error is not counted six times, and the later rungs carry more weight than the earlier ones. The case is FIXED STATE: the position described at every rung is the same for every respondent and is authored rather than generated from their earlier answers, which is stated on the report so that nobody reads a shared rung as a consequence of their own choice. Because per-rung normalisation puts a respondent choosing at random near the middle of every rung, the path score is additionally chance-corrected against the same per-rung null, drawn from the authored answer priors on each option, and both figures are printed. Constructs and sources: the civil standard of proof and its application to workplace findings; investigative interviewing and the evidence on open questioning, free recall and the damage done by leading and closed questions (the PEACE and cognitive-interview literatures); memory conformity and co-witness contamination, and the effect of discussion between witnesses on the independence of accounts (Gabbert, Memon and Allan); the weak relationship between confidence, detail and accuracy in eyewitness accounts; contemporaneity as a weight criterion; the separation of finding from recommendation and of conduct from characterisation in adjudicative writing; procedural justice and the effect of explained process on acceptance of an outcome (Leventhal's criteria; the voice literature); and item-writing guidance from Haladyna, Downing and Rodriguez. All items are original works written for this instrument. No vendor, code of practice, employer or professional body is reproduced, named or implied, and no endorsement or affiliation exists or is suggested.