The authors linked interview structure and litigation outcomes conceptually and empirically. Using legal and psychological literatures, they established a conceptual link based on reduced opportunities for differential treatment through standardization, reduced potential for bias through increased objectivity, and increased job relatedness. Analyzing decisions regarding 84 disparate-treatment claims and 46 disparate-impact claims in federal court cases, they established an empirical link between interview structure and how judges explained their verdicts. The 17 aspects of interview structure were scored in these cases. They collapsed into 3 composites: objective-job related, standardized administration, and multiple interviewers. Most items and composites were significantly related to favorable verdicts for defendants in both types of claims. The objective-job related composite was most highly related, followed by standardized administration. It is concluded that structure enhances interview reliability and validity, and it is also linked to litigation outcomes.

No abstract