Exploring the Boundary Conditions for Interview Validity: Meta‐analytic Validity Findings for a New Interview Type

Abstract

This study uses meta‐analysis of an extensive predictive validity data‐base to explore the boundary conditions for the validity of. the structured interview as presented by McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, and Maurer (1994). The interview examined here differs from traditional structured interviews in being empirically constructed, administered by telephone, and scored later based on a taped transcript. Despite these and other differences, this nontraditional employment interview was found to have essentially the same level of criterion‐related validity for supervisory ratings of job performance reported by McDaniel for other structured employment interviews. These findings suggest that a variety of different approaches to the construction, administration, and scoring of structured employment interviews may lead to comparable levels of validity. We hypothesize that this result obtains because different types of structured interviews all measure to varying degrees constructs with known generalizable validity (e.g., conscientiousness and general mental ability). The interview examined here was also found to be a valid predictor of production records, sales volume, absenteeism, and job tenure.

What you see may not be what you get: Relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance.

“…Third, hiring managers should reevaluate alternative interviewing methods, as these methods may reduce the effects of self-presentation tactics on interview outcomes. For example, structured interviews conducted by phone will reduce the impact of physical attractiveness on interview scores and simultaneously reduce the monetary expenses associated with physically interviewing job candidates (Schmidt & Rader, 1999).…”

Verbal and Nonverbal Impression Management Tactics in Behavior Description and Situational Interviews

“…Conversely, SIs (Latham, Saari, Pursell, & Campion, 1980;Taylor & Small, 2002) contain questions that are future-oriented, placing applicants in a hypothetical job-relevant situation and ask how they would respond. In this study, we focus on these two popular types of structured interviews, although we acknowledge that there exist other structured interview content areas (e.g., Campion et al, 1997;Fear, 1984;McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994;Schmidt & Rader, 1999;Schü ler, 1989).…”

Predicting work Performance through selection interview ratings and Psychological assessment

“…Interview Ratings correlated substantially with the criterion, thereby supporting the findings of other researchers (McDaniel et nl., 7994;Pearlman, Schmidt & Hamner, 1983;Salgado & Moscoso, 2002;Schmidt & Rader, 1999 (Gatewood & Field, 1994), because the personality test used here, the 15FQ+, was developed for use in the workplace.…”

“…Organisations need to ensure that their selection processes comply with legal requirements, but also that these processes a1low for the selection of individuals who are able to perform specified tasks and contribute effectively to their organisations However, many organisations do not establish or continue to check the validity of the methods used to make selection decisions (Hoffman & McPhail, 1998) Using selection processes that have not been validated is not beneficial to organisations, because the value derived from these processes remains unknown Furthermore, the costs associated with selection strategies that do not work are high, and this relates to both monetary and non-monetary costs (Burnett & Motowidlo, 1998;Miner, 1992;Schmidt & Rader, 1999) It is against this background that the present study was undertaken to assess the validity of specific selection methods, namely structured interviews and psychometric tests. The project focused on the value of interviews and psychological assessment (by means of personality and cognitive testing) as used in the areas of resourcing and selection in order to predict job performance.…”