Use evidence to select an employee
Compare selection methods and recommend a candidate using job-related evidence.
Exam scope and assessment notes
Cambridge IGCSE Business Studies 0450, 2026 syllabus, Version 2. Use the 2026 A*–G route; this qualification changes to 0264 for first assessment in 2027. Candidates are not assessed on constructing income statements or statements of financial position, nor on price-elasticity or exchange-rate calculations. Simple cash-flow forecast construction is assessed. Written practice is self-checked, not an official Cambridge grade; timed-paper evidence and human subject-teacher review remain outstanding.
Before you begin
- No previous business study is assumed. Read each scenario for the people affected, the business objective and any limits on time, cost or information.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Which method can directly test an applicant's stated typing speed?
What you will learn
- Recognise common selection methods
- Compare evidence from applicants
- Justify a hiring recommendation
Gather evidence from more than a first impression
Selection methods include CVs or résumés, application forms, references, tests or assessment centres, and interviews. Each offers different information: a test can demonstrate a skill, while an interview can probe how an applicant approaches a situation.
A method should relate to the job. A relevant work sample may show a candidate's practical ability; a structured interview can ask each applicant comparable questions.
Recommend from the role's criteria
Compare candidates with the person specification and the evidence gathered. A confident-sounding answer does not alone prove a candidate has the needed skill.
Selection can be affected by incomplete or biased evidence. Explain why the preferred candidate fits the job, and state what evidence should be checked before appointment.
Pause and explain
Why use the same structured interview questions for comparable applicants?
Worked example
Two applicants seek a cashier role. One has more retail experience; the other performs better on an accuracy test. What should the manager compare?
Show the worked solution
- Use the role's required skills.
- Retail experience may provide customer-service evidence.
- The accuracy test is directly relevant to handling transactions.
Answer The manager should compare both applicants against the role's criteria. The accuracy test is relevant to correct transactions, while retail experience may support customer service; a structured interview or reference could resolve remaining uncertainty.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
A warehouse needs a worker who can follow safety instructions and record stock accurately. Choose two suitable selection methods and explain what each could show.
Give me a hint
Match each method to one of the job requirements.
Compare my reasoning
- A practical inventory task can test recording accuracy.
- A structured interview can ask how the applicant follows safety instructions.
- References may provide further evidence if checked appropriately.
A stock-recording exercise can directly assess accuracy. A structured interview can explore safety decisions using the same questions for each applicant. The methods should be judged against the person specification.
Look for these in your work
- Methods relate to the vacancy
- Evidence described
- Comparison standard stated
An interview panel likes one applicant but has not checked references. Give one reason to delay a final decision and one safeguard for the process.
Give me a hint
Separate a positive impression from verified evidence.
Compare my reasoning
- An interview gives only part of the evidence.
- A reference can corroborate relevant experience or conduct.
- Use the same job-related criteria for all applicants.
The panel should verify relevant claims before confirming appointment. It should record how each applicant meets the same role-related criteria rather than relying on personal preference.
Look for these in your work
- Information gap identified
- Reference purpose stated
- Fair criterion suggested
A delivery firm needs drivers who can navigate unfamiliar routes and communicate courteously with customers. Recommend a selection combination and explain its limits.
Give me a hint
Use separate evidence for practical ability and interpersonal behaviour.
Compare my reasoning
- A route-planning task can test navigation decisions.
- A structured customer scenario can test communication.
- No exercise fully predicts behaviour on every future shift.
Use a route-planning exercise plus a structured role-play or interview scenario. This samples both skills, but the firm should also verify required qualifications and references; a short exercise cannot guarantee future performance.
Look for these in your work
- Both requirements assessed
- Methods explained
- Prediction limits acknowledged
Common mistakes
- Choosing only from a CV's appearance
- Using criteria that are unrelated to the vacancy
- Treating one test as a complete prediction of performance
What can you explain now?
Which method can directly test an applicant's stated typing speed?
Compare with the explanation
A relevant skills test
A work-related test can produce direct evidence of the skill.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Why should selection evidence be matched to the duties in the job description?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.