In selection procedures like assessment centers (ACs) and structured interviews, candidates are often not informed about the targeted criteria. Previous studies have shown that candidates' ability to identify these criteria (ATIC) is related to their performance in the respective selection procedure. However, past research has studied ATIC in only one selection procedure at a time, even though it has been assumed that ATIC is consistent across situations, which is a prerequisite for ATIC to contribute to selection procedures' criterion-related validity. In this study, 95 candidates participated in an AC and a structured interview. ATIC scores showed cross-situational consistency across the two procedures and accounted for part of the relationship between performance in the selection procedures. Furthermore, ATIC scores in one procedure predicted performance in the other procedure even after controlling for cognitive ability. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

The current study tested whether candidates' ability to identify the targeted interview dimensions fosters their interview success as well as the interviews' convergent and discriminant validity. Ninety-two interviewees participated in a simulated structured interview developed to measure three different dimensions. In line with the hypotheses, interviewees who were more proficient at identifying the targeted dimensions received better evaluations. Furthermore, interviewees' ability to identify these evaluation criteria accounted for substantial variance in predicting their performance even after controlling for cognitive ability. Finally, the interviewer ratings showed poor discriminant and convergent validity. However, we found some support for the hypothesis that the quality of the interviewer ratings improves when one only considers ratings from questions for which interviewees had correctly identified the intended dimensions.

Although researchers agree on the use of structured interviews in personnel selection, past research has been undecided on whether these interviews need to be conducted nontransparently (i.e., without giving interviewees any indication of the evaluated criteria) or transparently (i.e., by revealing to interviewees the dimensions assessed in the interview). This article presents two independent studies examining the effects of interview transparency on interviewees' performance and on the interview's construct and criterion-related validity in the context of an application training program. Results from both Study 1 (N = 123) and Study 2 (N = 269) indicate an improvement in interviewees' performance under transparent interview conditions. Both studies further support the assumption that transparent interviews show satisfactory construct validity, whereas nontransparent interviews do not. Moreover, Study 2 showed no significant difference between the interview's criterion-related validity under transparent versus nontransparent conditions. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.