My Introduction to Comparative Judgement

Recently I was introduced to a method called comparative judgement (CJ) and it’s reshaped how I think about fairness, performance and what “good” looks like.

CJ is based on a simple but powerful idea: rather than scoring work on a scale or against a checklist, you compare two examples and ask yourself, Which is better? Through many comparisons, a robust and reliable ranking emerges.

When I first used CJ, I was struck by:

• How quickly I formed a preference

• How confident I felt in those choices

• How much richer the conversation became when discussing what made one example stronger than another

It felt more natural — more human.

Why It Mattered

In social work and other people-focused professions, assessing quality is rarely black and white. CJ creates space for professional judgement while reducing bias and increasing reliability. It offers a structure that feels flexible but grounded — a rare balance.

I’ve started to think about where else CJ might work:

• Peer reviews of practice

• Reflective supervision discussions

• Staff development or training evaluations

Not everything needs a score. Sometimes what we need is a conversation about comparative quality.

What I’m Learning

This experience reminded me of the value of staying curious and open, even mid-career.

Learning about CJ has:

Challenged my assumptions about assessment

Encouraged me to trust instinctive judgement more

Sparked ideas for applying it in team development

Most importantly, it reminded me that even long-standing systems can be reimagined — and sometimes, the simplest changes have the biggest impact.

A Final Thought

You don’t need to be an academic or a researcher to explore comparative judgement. You just need to be willing to think differently about how we decide what’s good. For me, learning about CJ has been a welcome disruption....