Promotions and Pre-Assessment Support – Is Yours Up to Standard?

Evaluating the Impact of Pre-Assessment Support

During a recent client call, we were asked to analyse data related to the CPG preparation e-course. The client wanted to understand whether candidates who successfully passed the CPG had a different approach compared to those who did not.

The key question was: Does completing the e-course actually make a difference?

This led us to reflect on how Fire & Rescue Services (FRS) support candidates before assessments. For those FRS that conduct their own assessments without access to the CPG e-course, what pre-assessment support is provided? How is it perceived? And does it impact results?

What the Data Tells Us

A quick look at the data revealed a clear trend:

• Candidates with the highest scores had completed the e-course.
• Those with the lowest scores had either not used it at all or completed very little.
• On average, successful candidates completed 71% of the e-course, whereas unsuccessful candidates completed only 48%.

A similar pattern emerged from another FRS dataset:

• Candidates who passed the CPG had completed an average of 84% of the e-learning.
• Those who failed had an average completion rate of 56%.

While there was some variation, the overall trend suggests that commitment to pre-assessment learning has a direct impact on success. Interestingly, while some unsuccessful candidates had completed most of the course, we found no cases where successful candidates had skipped it entirely.

Challenges with Timing

Not all challenges come from the candidates themselves. In many cases, access to the e-course is provided too late to be truly beneficial. Delays caused by shortlisting, internal decision-making, or budget allocation can leave candidates with little time to prepare effectively.

One candidate summed up this frustration:

“Receiving the e-learning package at 17:30 on a Friday when my assessment was at 08:45 on Monday was disappointing and unfair. Some exercises within the e-learning ask you to reflect on your own performance over several weeks which I was unable to do. Having taken the assessment I feel I would have performed better had I had access to the eLearning a min 2 weeks in advance to allow me to develop the techniques to review and formulate a plan in such a limited time format.”

For candidates striving to do their best, the support provided must be better too.

How Can This Insight Improve Practice?

Should Pre-Assessment Learning Be Compulsory?

Pre-assessment learning has long been considered best practice, but with the growing emphasis on assessment as part of a wider development framework, should it be prioritized even more?

Could pre-learning serve as an initial sifting stage? Traditional methods like appraisals and application forms often raise concerns about impartiality and effectiveness. Instead, requiring candidates to complete an e-course could:

• Ensure fairer and more objective early-stage selection.
• Help candidates develop relevant leadership skills.
• Improve performance and understanding of the assessment criteria.

Enhancing Tracking and Engagement

A key takeaway from our data analysis is that completion rates alone don’t tell the full story. Simply clicking through modules isn’t the same as actively engaging with exercises.

Going forward, we aim to track:

• Time spent on the e-learning.
• Engagement with exercises rather than just completion rates.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that candidates who fully commit to the course perform better, avoiding common mistakes like:

• Failing to use exercise data in responses.
• Not fully showcasing their leadership behaviours.

Should the E-Learning Be Mandatory?

So far, we’ve avoided making the e-learning compulsory, respecting each FRS’s autonomy. However, if it were fully integrated into the CPG process, would this be fairer?

Could it help shift the CPG from a selection tool to a broader development tool? One possibility is using it as a self-selection filter:

• If a candidate doesn’t have time to complete the e-course, they aren’t eligible for the CPG.
• This could reduce last-minute dropouts, which currently cost an FRS an average of £850 per process.
• (Candidates with legitimate reasons for non-attendance can reschedule, but those who simply withdraw at the last minute incur costs.)

Currently, the e-course costs £20 per candidate. We are exploring two potential pricing models:

An annual license fee – offering a discounted rate.
A small increase to the CPG cost – for example, adding £15 per candidate, reducing upfront individual costs.

We will discuss these options with our clients to determine the best approach.

Final Thoughts

If pre-assessment learning directly improves success rates, shouldn’t it be a priority? As we refine our approach, we invite Fire & Rescue Services to consider:

• How early and effectively pre-assessment support is provided.
• Whether e-learning should be a standard part of assessment preparation.
• How data and tracking can be used to ensure real engagement rather than just completion.

By improving access, tracking engagement, and prioritising development, we can help candidates perform at their best—and ensure fairer, more effective promotion processes.