A meta-analysis of 111 interrater reliability coefficients and 49 coefficient alphas from selection interviews was conducted. Moderators of interrater reliability included study design, interviewer training, and 3 dimensions of interview structure (standardization of questions, of response evaluation, and of combining multiple ratings). Interactions showed that standardizing questions had a stronger moderating effect on reliability when coefficients were from separate (rather than panel) interviews, and multiple ratings were useful when combined mechanically (there was no evidence of usefulness when combined subjectively). Average correlations (derived from alphas) between ratings were moderated by standardization of questions and number of ratings made. Upper limits of validity were estimated to be .67 for highly structured interviews and .34 for unstructured interviews.Researchers have long been interested in determining how the reliability and the validity of selection-interview ratings can be improved (e.g., Wagner, 1949). Several recent meta-analyses have examined moderators of interview validity (e.g., Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994;McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994;Weisner & Cronshaw, 1988). These studies have provided useful information, such as the general finding that validity is greater for structured interviews than for unstructured interviews. However, Hakel (1989) proposed another approach to improving interview ratings-studying interview reliability. Hakel suggested a meta-analysis covering interrater coefficients, stabilities over time, and internal consistencies. Note that a reliability coefficient indicating stability over time is an interrater coefficient where the ratings are based on separate interviews (rather than a panel interview) with the same applicant. Therefore, reliabilities can be divided into three groups: two

The Americans With Disabilities Act poses unique challenges for public and private sector organizations. The Act requires reasonable accommodation for a variety of physical and emotional disabilities, but it does not specify what constitutes “reasonable.” If organizations rely on ad hoc decisions regarding protected individuals, they risk unsystematic decisions and exposure to liability under the law. This paper describes a way to systematize decisions about A.D.A. An accommodation cost assessment system, based on a job analysis, can help guarantee that employment and promotion decisions are fair and defensible under the Act.

No abstract

No abstract