A Review of Structure in the Selection Interview

Abstract

Virtually every previous review has concluded that structuring the selection interview improves its psychometric properties. This paper reviews the research literature in order to describe and evaluate the many ways interviews can be structured. Fifteen components of structure are identified that may enhance either the content of the interview or the evaluation process in the interview. Each component is explained in terms of its various operationalizations in the literature. Then, each component is critiqued in terms of its impact on numerous forms of reliability, validity, and user reactions. Finally, recommendations for research and practice are presented. It is concluded that interviews can be easily enhanced by using some of the many possible components of structure, and the improvement of this popular selection procedure should be a high priority for future research and practice.In the 80-year history of published research on employment interviewing (dating back to Scott, 1915), few conclusions have been more widely supported than the idea that structuring the interview enhances reliability and validity.

Exploring Methods for Developing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Evaluating Structured Interview Performance

“…There is no standard method for generating the content used to create interview BARS (Campion et al, 1997). Some of the methods that have been used include using answers heard by SMEs during job interviews from candidates who were actually hired (Latham et al, 1980), having interviewers develop anchors from notes about responses to similar questions (Green, Alter, & Carr, 1993), brainstorming and speculation by SMEs (Campion et al, 1988;Robertson, Gratton, & Rout, 1990), and having project staff draft a first version of the BARS and revising it after consulting with SMEs (M. A. Campion, personal communication, January 27, 2016).…”

“…Structured interviews that present all interviewees with the same standardized questions have higher validities for predicting job performance than unstructured interviews that vary the questions posed to each interviewee (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Standardized, anchored scales to rate responses to each question comprise one element of interview structure (Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997). Use of behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) tends to increase the reliability and predictive validity of structured interview scores (Taylor & Small, 2002) and may decrease bias against protected groups (Reilly, Bocketti, Maser, & Wennet, 2006).…”

“…The following quotes are representative: "The job experts, together with the first author, reviewed the questions and attempted to generate anchors for the three scale points. Discussion ensued concerning each suggested anchor until the four experts came to agreement regarding the best anchor for the scale point in question" (Weekley & Gier, 1987, p. 485) and "For each of the 25 interview questions … benchmark answers (1 = poor, 3 = average, 5 = good) were developed by the supervisors of the office clerical employees" (Latham & Saari, 1984, p. 571).There is no standard method for generating the content used to create interview BARS (Campion et al, 1997). Some of the methods that have been used include using answers heard by SMEs during job interviews from candidates who were actually hired (Latham et al, 1980), having interviewers develop anchors from notes about responses to similar questions (Green, Alter, & Carr, 1993), brainstorming and speculation by SMEs (Campion et al, 1988;Robertson, Gratton, & Rout, 1990), and having project staff draft a first version of the BARS and revising it after consulting with SMEs (M. A. Campion, personal communication, January 27, 2016).…”

Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes.

“…Campion et al, 1988;Pursell et al, 1980). Our definition of structure used here is based on that of M. A. Campion, Palmer, and J. E. Campion (1997). It considers structure broadly as any enhancement of the interview that is intended to increase psychometric properties by increasing standardization or otherwise assisting the interviewer in determining what questions to ask or how to evaluate responses.…”

“…We used this broad definition of structure because of the wide range of enhancements to the interview observed in the existing literature (M. A. Campion et al, 1997) and because this will help avoid overlooking any enhancements that may be relevant to legal defensibility. Illustrations follow.…”