This study sought to provide an update on evidence regarding the interrater reliability of employment interviews. Using a final dataset of 125 coefficients with a total sample size of 32,428, our results highlight the importance of taking all three sources of measurement error (random response, transient, and conspect) into account. For instance, the mean interrater reliability was considerably higher for panel interviews than for separate interviews conducted by different interviewers (.74 vs. .44). A strong implication of our findings is that interview professionals should not base perceptions of the psychometric properties of their interview process on interrater estimates that do not include all three sources. A number of directions for future research were identified, including the influence of cues in medium structure panel interviews (e.g., changes in tone or pitch) and the lower than expected reliability for highly structured interviews conducted separately by different interviewers.

This study provides updated estimates of the criterion-related validity of employment interviews, incorporating indirect range restriction methodology. Using a final dataset of 92 coefficients (N = 7,389), we found corrected estimates by structural level of .20 (Level 1), .46 (Level 2), .71 (Level 3), and .70 (Level 4). The latter values are noticeably higher than in previous interview meta-analyses where the assumption was made that all restriction was direct. These results highlight the importance of considering indirect range restriction in selection. However, we found a number of studies involving both indirect and direct restriction, which calls into question the viability of assuming all restriction is now indirect. We found preliminary empirical support for correction of one of these multiple restriction patterns, indirect then direct.

No abstract

Two studies were conducted to examine the use of behavioral cues to identify deception within structured interviews. In Study 1, participants engaged in mock interviews in which they were instructed to lie on specific questions that varied by person. Trained coders evaluated the presence and extent of deception cues in each videotaped response. Nine cues predicted responses as expected, demonstrating that, with careful scrutiny, it is possible to detect deception. In Study 2, participants, either informed or uninformed regarding deception cues, viewed five interviews and evaluated responses as being honest or deceptive. Participants also rated overall interview performance. Participants were unable to accurately distinguish lies from truths. Nevertheless, performance ratings differed on the basis of rater perceptions of truthfulness.

In their focal article, Drasgow, Chernyshenko, and Stark (2010) depict Thurstone scaling methods as superior to Likert rating scales, particularly for attitude assessment, noting numerous benefits of the former. In their fervor to give credit to Thurstone scaling methods however, they tend to discount the benefits of Likert scaling, leaving the reader to question the utility of Likert scaling in any case. We believe that discarding Likert scales for attitude measurement, a suggestion that, although not explicitly stated, seems to be implied, would be premature and akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Questionable Victories for Thurstone (and Defeats for Likert)Drasgow et al. highlight numerous benefits of Thurstone scaling relative to Likert scaling. On the surface, their detailed analysis provides compelling support for the use of ideal point methods for attitude assessment. However, although we concede the superiority of Thurstone scaling in some settings,