Independent Rating Rules

The Rule Set You Must Not Freestyle

The five-point scale is only half of SJT mechanics. The other half is how ratings relate to each other. College of Policing candidate guidance states the process rules in plain terms. Learn them as non-negotiable operations—not optional tips.

Official independent rating rules (candidate guidance)

1. Rate each action independently of the other actions.
2. You can allocate the same rating to more than one action if appropriate.
3. You do not have to use the full range of the rating scale for the actions in a scenario.
4. Base judgements on information in the scenario only.
5. Focus on what is most professional, respectful, and appropriate.
6. No policing experience is required to rate well.

Add the structure rule from the first section: even if you would take a different unlisted action, still rate the four provided.

---

Independent Rating vs Disguised Ranking

Many aptitude tests train people to rank options. The national sift SJT is an independent rating task. Ranking can be a private mental check after you rate, but it must not replace independent impact judgements.

What independent rating sounds like internally

• “Action A as a first response: does it help, fail to help, or make things worse?”
• “Action B as a first response: same questions, using the same scale definitions.”
• “If A and B both reasonably help, they can both be Effective.”

What disguised ranking sounds like

• “I already used Very effective on A, so B cannot also be Very effective.”
• “I need one of each label or the system will flag me.”
• “D has to be Counterproductive because something has to be worst.”

Those thoughts are process errors. Official rules explicitly allow same ratings and explicitly say you need not use the full scale range.

Artificial distribution: the quiet trap

Artificial distribution means forcing variety across the scale so your four ratings “look balanced.” Example of a bad habit:

In the forced-spread column, the candidate demoted or promoted actions so that labels would differ, not because impact demanded it. That is rank-ordering wearing a rating costume.

---

Worked Contrast: Same Scenario, Two Processes

Teaching stem (not an official keyed item): A member of the public is upset about a delayed appointment. They are raised-voice frustrated but not threatening. You can resolve the delay with a short explanation and a rebook.

Four teaching actions:

1. Listen, apologise for the inconvenience, explain the delay factually, and rebook promptly.
2. Offer a clear rebook and a note of who to contact if problems continue.
3. Tell them to “calm down or leave” without addressing the appointment.
4. Walk away mid-sentence to chat with a colleague about weekend plans.

Process 1 — Independent rating (correct approach)

Notice actions 1 and 2 can share a high rating. You are not required to invent a difference.

Process 2 — Forced ranking habit (incorrect)

The second process optimises for pretty spreads, not truthful effectiveness. Official rules forbid needing that ladder.

---

Same Rating Allowed: When It Is Appropriate

Use the same rating when two (or more) actions produce similar impact quality on the situation.

Appropriate same-rating cases

• Two different wordings of a respectful, helpful first response
• Two weak options that both fail to help without clearly worsening things → both Ineffective
• Two harmful options that both escalate unfairly → both Counterproductive

Inappropriate “same rating” laziness

Do not give all four actions Effective because you are tired. Independence is not indifference. Each action still needs its own impact check. Same ratings are allowed when deserved—not as a bulk default.

---

Full Scale Range Not Required

You might face a scenario where all four listed actions are poor. You might face one where three are solid and one is weak. Official guidance does not require you to manufacture a Counterproductive or a Very effective just to “complete the set.”

The pattern must come from the actions, not from a template you apply to every item.

---

Professional, Respectful, Appropriate—Without Prior Experience

Guidance directs you to focus on what is most professional, respectful, and appropriate. That is the CVF-aligned compass at practitioner level:

• Professional: calm, fair, ownership-minded, evidence-based on the facts given
• Respectful: dignity for the public and colleagues; no humiliation “lessons”
• Appropriate: proportionate first response; neither reckless cowboy action nor total avoidance when help is needed

Why “no experience required” is liberating

If you have never worn a uniform, you can still judge:

• whether mocking a vulnerable person makes things worse
• whether listening and clarifying next steps helps
• whether ignoring a clear problem fails to resolve it
• whether inventing punishments not supported by the stem is inappropriate

If you do have experience, use it only to recognise professionalism—not to override the stem with unstated powers or local customs.

---

A Repeatable Four-Step Method Per Scenario

Use this sequence every time until it is automatic:

1. Read the stem for constraints — who is affected, what is known, what is not happening, first-response horizon.
2. Cover the other actions mentally — rate action 1 alone against the official scale table.
3. Rate actions 2–4 alone — allow equal ratings; do not force unused bands.
4. Optional consistency glance — only after independent ratings, check you did not accidentally rank; adjust only if an impact reason was wrong, not to beautify the spread.

Micro-checklist before you leave a scenario

• Did I use only stem facts?
• Did each action get its own impact decision?
• If two ratings match, is that because impact matches?
• Did I avoid forcing all five scale points?
• Would a respectful professional first response look like my high ratings?
• Would my low ratings truly fail to help or actively worsen things?

---

Integrating Rules With the Scale Table

Keep both tools together:

Independence decides whether two actions can share a row. The scale decides which row each action earns.

Final mechanical myths to delete

• “The algorithm requires one Very effective per scenario.” — Not an official rating rule.
• “Two Effective ratings cancel each other.” — Same ratings are explicitly allowed.
• “I must use Counterproductive somewhere.” — Full range is not required.
• “Experienced officers should invent extra facts.” — Scenario-only information still binds everyone.
• “Independent rating means I never compare quality.” — You may notice relative quality, but you still assign absolute effectiveness labels, not forced unique ranks.

When structure, scale, and independence work together, the SJT becomes a clean measure of judgement. Later strategy chapters will deepen what professional priorities look like; this section ensures how you enter those judgements into the platform matches College of Policing rules exactly.