How to Write APS Selection Criteria: A Step-by-Step Guide
A response that panels cannot score will not reach the merit list, regardless of the applicant's actual capability. Knowing how to write APS selection criteria means understanding what panels are rewarding — and structuring your evidence accordingly.
This guide walks through the process step by step, from reading the criterion to finalising your response, with a worked example and editing checklist included.
Generate Your APS Selection Criteria Responses
Paste the job ad and describe your experience.
APS Selection Helper will generate structured STAR responses aligned to APS selection criteria.
You can preview the draft before unlocking the full version.
Generate Selection Criteria Draft →
What Panels Are Actually Marking
Before writing a single word, understand what the panel will assess. Panels do not reward personality, enthusiasm, or potential. They allocate marks against specific capability indicators defined in the position description and agency framework.
For roles at EL1 and above, panels reference the Integrated Leadership System (ILS), which outlines what leadership behaviour looks like at each classification. For APS 4–6 roles, panels work from the APS Work Level Standards. Both frameworks describe expected complexity, decision-making scope, and stakeholder engagement at each level.
A response scores when it contains:
- Specific, named workplace context
- A clear description of the actions you took
- Evidence of the complexity appropriate to the classification level
- A verifiable or measurable result
A response that is vague, generic, or lacks an outcome will receive a reduced mark — regardless of how confidently it is written.
See also: common mistakes in APS selection criteria responses for a breakdown of the patterns that consistently reduce scores.
What Panels Expect at Each Classification Level
The APS Work Level Standards define what panels expect to see at each classification. Understanding the gap between your current level and the target level is essential for calibrating the complexity of your examples.
| Classification |
Expected Complexity |
Decision-Making Scope |
| APS 3–4 |
Task execution under guidance |
Procedural judgment within established rules |
| APS 5 |
Independent coordination |
Manages competing inputs, owns defined outputs |
| APS 6 |
Initiative and cross-team influence |
Identifies risks, shapes approaches, drives outcomes |
| EL1 |
Team leadership and strategic input |
Directs others, manages upward, organisational impact |
| EL2 |
Strategic leadership |
Shapes policy or program direction, manages significant risk |
A response that demonstrates APS5 complexity when applying for an APS6 role will not score competitively — even if the example itself is accurate. The panel is assessing whether the applicant's evidence matches the target classification, not their current one.
Typical APS Selection Criteria
While criteria vary by agency and role, most APS positions use a consistent set of capability headings. Familiarity with these reduces the time spent interpreting what a criterion is actually asking for.
Common APS criteria at APS5 and APS6 level:
- Communicates with influence
- Works collaboratively
- Achieves results
- Thinks strategically
- Demonstrates commitment to accountability and compliance
- Influences and builds relationships
- Leads and motivates others (APS6 and above)
Each of these maps to specific evidence patterns. A response to "Communicates with influence" requires evidence of persuasion or change — not simply evidence of talking to people. Reading the criterion carefully before selecting an example is the most important step in the writing process.
Weak vs Strong: What the Difference Looks Like
Before working through the steps, it helps to see the contrast. Both responses below address the same criterion at APS5 level.
Weak Response
I have strong analytical skills and experience conducting research across a range of policy areas. Throughout my career I have contributed to policy development processes and worked with teams to produce advice for senior management. I am comfortable working independently and always aim to produce well-researched, high-quality outputs.
Why this does not score: No situation, no specific action, no result. This response tells the panel that the applicant has skills — it does not show those skills in use. A panel member cannot allocate marks from claims alone.
Strong Response
As APS5 Policy Analyst in the Department of Finance, I was asked to assess three competing options for a regulatory compliance framework within a two-week window ahead of a ministerial deadline. One option had been proposed by an external consultant whose methodology I identified as inconsistent with the relevant legislative instrument.
I prepared a structured options analysis setting out the legislative basis for each approach, the compliance risk for each, and a recommended option with supporting rationale. I flagged the inconsistency in the consultant's methodology to my EL1 and recommended the response. The ministerial brief incorporated the recommended option. The framework was adopted without amendment by the relevant decision-maker.
What changed: Named role, named department, specific constraint, individual judgment demonstrated, result is specific and verifiable. The panel can assess analytical capability directly from this response.
How to Write APS Selection Criteria: The Step-by-Step Process
Step 1: Read the Criterion as a Panel Member Would
Before selecting an example, identify the behaviours the criterion is actually asking for. A criterion such as "Communicates with influence" requires evidence of persuasion or change — not simply evidence of communication. Re-read the criterion until you can describe what a "Well Suited" response would look like.
Step 2: Select the Right Example
Choose a specific situation, not a general pattern. Ask: can I name the date, the department, the stakeholders, and the outcome? If yes, the example is specific enough. If you are describing what you "typically" do, you do not yet have a usable example.
Match the complexity of your example to your classification level. An APS6 response should demonstrate judgment, coordination across teams or external parties, and outcomes with visible scope. An EL1 response should include leadership, strategic context, or organisational impact.
Mapping examples to criteria:
Before selecting a situation, identify the specific behaviour the criterion is asking for. Most APS criteria map to one of the following capability domains:
- Relationships and communication — Look for examples involving stakeholder management, consultation, or persuasion
- Delivering results — Look for examples involving delivery under constraint, competing demands, or measurable outputs
- Analysis and judgment — Look for examples involving problem identification, options analysis, or decision-making
- Leadership — Look for examples involving directing others, managing conflict, or shaping team direction
A strong example directly addresses the criterion's capability domain. An example that demonstrates stakeholder management when the criterion asks for analytical judgment will score lower, regardless of how well-written it is.
Step 3: Write a Draft Using the STAR Structure
The STAR method — Situation, Task, Action, Result — is the most reliable structure for APS selection criteria responses.
Draft without editing:
- Situation: Where were you, and what was the context?
- Task: What were you responsible for achieving?
- Action: What did you specifically do? What decisions did you make?
- Result: What happened as a result? What was measurable?
Do not compress or edit during drafting. Write the full story first.
Step 4: Review for Evidence Density
Read your draft and mark every sentence that contains observable evidence. Any sentence that contains only claims or adjectives with no specific context should be cut or replaced.
High-evidence sentence: "I consolidated three conflicting submissions into a single position paper, endorsed by all three stakeholders prior to the deadline."
Low-evidence sentence: "I worked effectively with a range of stakeholders to achieve a positive outcome."
Step 5: Check Against the Criterion
Return to the criterion text. Does your response demonstrate the specific capability described? If the criterion asks for evidence of working under pressure and your response demonstrates stakeholder engagement without any element of pressure or constraint, you may have answered the wrong question.
Step 6: Apply Word Allocation
Distribute your words deliberately:
- Context and situation: 20%
- Task: 15%
- Actions and decisions: 45%
- Results: 20%
If over the word limit, cut context first. The panel already knows what a department does — they do not need three sentences of background.
Step 7: Edit for Clarity
Remove hedging language: "I assisted in helping to facilitate…" becomes "I coordinated…"
Remove passive constructions where your individual agency is unclear.
Remove adjectives that describe your character rather than your actions.
Worked Examples by Level
The following two examples use the same criterion at different classification levels. Comparing them illustrates how the expected complexity scales.
Criterion: Works collaboratively
APS 5 response (~120 words):
As APS5 Policy Officer in the Department of Finance, I coordinated input from five branch areas for a whole-of-government expenditure review. Two branches submitted conflicting data on capital expenditure treatment. I met separately with each branch's data leads, identified the discrepancy source — a different accounting classification applied by each — and proposed a reconciliation method that both teams endorsed. The consolidated data was submitted on time and required no correction during the review panel process.
This response contains: named role, named department, specific stakeholder count, visible conflict, named individual action, and a verifiable result.
APS 6 response (~130 words):
As APS6 Senior Policy Officer in the Department of Finance, I was assigned lead coordination responsibility for the same expenditure review when the original coordinator transferred mid-process. I identified that four of the five branches had already submitted data using outdated classification guidelines issued eighteen months prior. Rather than seek an extension, I convened a rapid alignment session with all four branch data leads, distributed the current classification guidance, and agreed a re-submission timeline that still met the original deadline. I prepared a consolidated clarification note endorsed by the Chief Finance Officer to accompany the submission. The review panel accepted the consolidated data without query.
What changes between APS5 and APS6: the APS6 response demonstrates initiative in diagnosing a systemic error, a wider coordination scope, and endorsement at CFO level. The structure is identical; the complexity is higher.
For additional full examples, see the APS selection criteria example guide.
Editing Checklist
Before finalising your response, confirm:
Common Pitfalls
Writing about what you always do, not what you did. Panels want a specific example, not a job description.
Describing team success without individual contribution. Panels score the individual. Clarify what you did — not what "we" achieved.
Leading with background instead of action. Many applicants spend 40% of their word count on context. Context provides orientation only; it does not score.
Underselling complexity. Panels expect complexity appropriate to the target level. If your APS6 example contains no judgment, no escalation, and no coordination, it may score as APS4.
For full detail on each of these, with rewrite examples, see common mistakes in APS selection criteria.
If You're Struggling to Structure Your Response
Structuring APS responses clearly and concisely is often harder than it looks.
APS Selection Helper generates structured drafts aligned to your job ad and experience. You remain in control of editing before submission.
Generate Selection Criteria Draft →
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need to follow the STAR structure exactly?
The STAR structure is a guide, not a mandatory format. What matters is that your response contains situation, action, and result. You do not need to label sections. However, responses that lack any one of these elements consistently score lower than those that include all three.
How many examples should I include per criterion?
One strong, specific example is usually more effective than two brief ones. If you have space and a genuinely distinct second example that demonstrates a different aspect of the criterion, you can include a brief second instance — two to three sentences covering action and result only.
How do I write APS selection criteria if I don't have direct APS experience?
Focus on directly comparable experience from the private sector, community sector, or education. Use the same structural approach: name the organisation, name the situation, describe your action, and quantify the result. Panels assess capability, not sector. A well-evidenced private sector example will score higher than a weak APS example.
What is the difference between a selection criteria response and a statement of claims?
A statement of claims is a combined document addressing all criteria together, usually within a single word limit — for example, 1,500 words. A selection criteria response addresses each criterion individually. Both use the same evidence standards: specific, measurable, structured. Read the position description carefully to determine which format is required.